Destroying Darwinism: Getting Technical

OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
1."your motives aren't scientific."
Let's dispense with any notion that your inclinations have anything to do with science.
My 'motives,' whatever you imagine them to be, have nothing to do with the facts and questions posed by the OP.

In reality you are merely seeking to obfuscate the fact that you have no answers for same.
You've danced around the questions and attempted to make the argument about me.

Let's be honest: you're a dope.


2. "You are interested in pushing your agenda, which you aren't honest or brave enough to admit too."
Another fib....with the same purpose as exposed above.

And to prove it....my 'agenda' is right there in the title....you know, the words that inflamed you.
AND...the reason they inflamed you is that you believe in Darwinism...yet can't defend it.


3. "Considering all of your degrees are in the fine arts, and I have an M.D.;..."
First, I have never mentioned my degree...

...second, M.D., in your case, clearly stands for Mundane Drivel.



4. "...your opinion on my understanding of science."

Hardly my opinion....I'll prove it. I'll put up post with the four questions from the OP that you won't be able to answer.





Read post 32 if you dare.....and quake in your shoes.
To be clear, you aren't making any novel arguments against evolution. You are tossing out the same academically dishonest crap that creationists (or proponents of intelligent design) often toss out to try and muddy the waters.

As you have no background in the natural sciences, I could understand how an ordinary person could be confused by all of these items. However, you are intelligent enough to know exactly what you are doing. Watching you be intentionally obtuse is not terribly inspiring or interesting to those of us who know better.

As an aside, when did you become so easily flustered? Perhaps you are experiencing some cognitive decline as you progress into the golden years?




"As an aside, when did you become so easily flustered?"


Would you mind showing where I was ever.....ever....flustered?


Do you actually imagine that folks reading this won't see how you are trying to reverse the facts......

....with post #32 as glaring proof?



Or....do you not understand that 'flustered' means 'confused'?

So......which of us is confused?

Correct: you are.
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
lets take a look at how many missing links have been proven to be not missing links at all.
I would suggest your DNA would link you to the Neanderthals, except a recent participant on Jeopardy said she had her DNA tested and she was 3% Neanderthal. Hence, you must be related to one of the missing links less successful than a Neanderthal.
 

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,169
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
I'm about to destroy you....

Let me warn you in advance: Keep your hands inside the ride at all times.
.............

1. Darwin's theor "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.
"Equilibrium"

Punctuated Equilibrium is not the "opposite" of Natural Selection (Darwin's contribution to Evolutionary Biology).

Punctuated Equilibrium also claim that "changes are sudden, spontaneous".
Not quite.

Perhaps you should read the peer reviewed works of the original source as opposed to relying on someone from a pro-creationsit websight to do your academic legwork for you...

Provided for your edification:

Nature. 1993 Nov 18;366(6452):223-7.
Punctuated equilibrium comes of age.
Gould SJ, Eldredge N.
Author information
Abstract
The intense controversies that surrounded the youth of punctuated equilibrium have helped it mature to a useful extension of evolutionary theory. As a complement to phyletic gradualism, its most important implications remain the recognition of stasis as a meaningful and predominant pattern within the history of species, and in the recasting of macroevolution as the differential success of certain species (and their descendants) within clades.
PMID: 8232582 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Yet...numbskulls accept both as correct. Where is their explanation?
They understand that the theories don't contradict themselves.

2. Damning evidence against Darwin's theory comes from the Burgess Shale discovery, which attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts. But there is no evidence of gradual development!

Yet...numbskulls ignore the sudden appearances. Where is their explanation?
I don't really understand your point. You are upset because the change is not gradual enough? What kind of time frame are you operating off of? If sudden speciation invalidates natural selection, what kind of time frame should we see that would support Darwin's model? What, a novel species ever 1 billion years? Every 1 million years?

You need to do a little more work on your end of the argument if you are going to argue that these theories invalidate natural selection.

there is no chemical evolutionary process that has been shown to explain the origin of the information in DNA or RNA needed to produce life from simple, preexisting chemicals.
Let me just refer you to the following little-known Nobel Prize winning work from 60+ years ago.

Science. 1959 Dec 11;130(3389):1622-4.
Origin of Life.
Miller SL, Urey HC.
PMID: 17781381 [PubMed]
And nucleotide sequencing along the DNA supermolecule must be exact "to the nucleotide" or results could be disastrous."
And frequently are. This is why we have cancer.



While you castigate us for pointing out that your objections to evolution are religiously based. I would re-refer you to the source that YOU provided to support your argument.

Did you think we would be too lame to click on your own link?

It would be nice if your "source" had a lead author to attribute its rather large claims too. Otherwise, it just reads like an opinion piece.

Which it is.

You can read a molecular biology textbook for a more in-depth explanation of mutation if you are truly interested.


remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.
No they don't.

Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.
"This is just too complicated to have happened on its own" is the battle cry on the intellectually dull.

If you were really interested in seeking answers to these very basic questions there are mountains of text books, papers and online resources to assist you.

However, you obviously aren't interested in honesty. If you were, you wouldn't resort to using an obviously biased source.

You can sit here and amaze the dullards with a bunch of half-assed arguments wrapped in a Master's Degree lexicon.

For everyone else, your arguments can be reduced to the usual creationist mantra: "This is just too complicated to have happened without the help of a supernatural force."

So in summary, you have a major problem in accepting the "numbers of evolution" which are probabilities in the orders of the millions and trillions. However, you have no problem accepting that some omnipotent force made all of this happen with the wave of a hand.
 

geauxtohell

Choose your weapon.
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Messages
15,125
Reaction score
2,169
Points
48
Location
Out here in the middle.
the opportunity to support Darwinism....and you use the phrase "intentionally obtuse".......
What is Darwinism?

Darwin had no concept of DNA when he published. In fact, his concept of how genetic material was passed on to new generations was pretty laughable.

As it stands, are you using the phrase "Darwinism" as a pejorative slur or are you implying that we all have to accept Darwin's "Origin of Species" ver batum?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I'm about to destroy you....

Let me warn you in advance: Keep your hands inside the ride at all times.
.............

1. Darwin's theor "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.
"Equilibrium"

Punctuated Equilibrium is not the "opposite" of Natural Selection (Darwin's contribution to Evolutionary Biology).



Not quite.

Perhaps you should read the peer reviewed works of the original source as opposed to relying on someone from a pro-creationsit websight to do your academic legwork for you...

Provided for your edification:






They understand that the theories don't contradict themselves.



I don't really understand your point. You are upset because the change is not gradual enough? What kind of time frame are you operating off of? If sudden speciation invalidates natural selection, what kind of time frame should we see that would support Darwin's model? What, a novel species ever 1 billion years? Every 1 million years?

You need to do a little more work on your end of the argument if you are going to argue that these theories invalidate natural selection.



Let me just refer you to the following little-known Nobel Prize winning work from 60+ years ago.





And frequently are. This is why we have cancer.



While you castigate us for pointing out that your objections to evolution are religiously based. I would re-refer you to the source that YOU provided to support your argument.

Did you think we would be too lame to click on your own link?

It would be nice if your "source" had a lead author to attribute its rather large claims too. Otherwise, it just reads like an opinion piece.

Which it is.



You can read a molecular biology textbook for a more in-depth explanation of mutation if you are truly interested.


remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.
No they don't.

Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.
"This is just too complicated to have happened on its own" is the battle cry on the intellectually dull.

If you were really interested in seeking answers to these very basic questions there are mountains of text books, papers and online resources to assist you.

However, you obviously aren't interested in honesty. If you were, you wouldn't resort to using an obviously biased source.

You can sit here and amaze the dullards with a bunch of half-assed arguments wrapped in a Master's Degree lexicon.

For everyone else, your arguments can be reduced to the usual creationist mantra: "This is just too complicated to have happened without the help of a supernatural force."

So in summary, you have a major problem in accepting the "numbers of evolution" which are probabilities in the orders of the millions and trillions. However, you have no problem accepting that some omnipotent force made all of this happen with the wave of a hand.




1. ""Equilibrium"

Punctuated Equilibrium is not the "opposite" of Natural Selection (Darwin's contribution to Evolutionary Biology).


Do you know what opposite means?

Darwin: changes gradual due to accumulation of small alterationg
Gould: sudden.


Do you know the mean of 'gradual' and 'sudden'?
Yes....opposites.


Strike one.




2. "I don't really understand your point. You are upset because the change is not gradual enough? What kind of time frame are you operating off of? If sudden speciation invalidates natural selection, what kind of time frame should we see that would support Darwin's model? What, a novel species ever 1 billion years? Every 1 million years?"

a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


c.Here is the source of the problem: 'Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies.... The Cambrian explosion, or Cambrian radiation, was the relatively rapid appearance, around542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

d. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.


Strike two.




3."... there is no chemical evolutionary process that has been shown to explain the origin of the information in DNA or RNA needed to produce life from simple, preexisting chemicals.
Miller SL, Urey HC."

I am fully familiar with the work.
You are not....or you would have realized that it has no bearing on either DNA or RNA.

Do you know the products he found in the soup that resulted from water, hydrogen, ammonia and methane?
You didn't do well in organic chemistry, did you?




4. "While you castigate us for pointing out that your objections to evolution are religiously based. I would re-refer you to the source that YOU provided to support your argument."

There is no religion based information, data, nor argument. It is fact.
Are you basing your argument on denying what is quoted?
Didn't think so.


Would you like Hoyle better?
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2,000=1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup." "Evolution from Space" by Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, p.24.





5. "remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.
No they don't. "

Yeah....they do.

"To make an organism requires not only a tremendous variety of these substances, in adequate amounts and proper proportions, but also just the right arrangement of them. Structure here is as important as composition - and what a complication of structural. The most complex machine man has devised - say an electronic brain - is child’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms. The especially trying thing is that complexity here involves such small dimensions. It is on the molecular level; it consists of a detailed fitting of molecule to molecule such as no chemist can attempt."
G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4.

Strike three.



Well....you tried.....and failed.

I hope you take heed of how easily your abysmal ignorance of the topic is to reveal.


In large measure your government schooling taught you to accept rather than question, and it is that flaw that you can blame for how badly you did today.

It is the reason why my questions proved so daunting to you.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
the opportunity to support Darwinism....and you use the phrase "intentionally obtuse".......
What is Darwinism?

Darwin had no concept of DNA when he published. In fact, his concept of how genetic material was passed on to new generations was pretty laughable.

As it stands, are you using the phrase "Darwinism" as a pejorative slur or are you implying that we all have to accept Darwin's "Origin of Species" ver batum?


Darwin's theory is unproven.

Are you aware of numerous other theories of how life originated and evolved?

Why is the failed theory the one pushed on students, as it was on you?

Think about it.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY

Again.

I am not interested in your opinion as you are a lay person.

You need to so some actual work on your end if you want to support the claims that you are making.


I just ripped you to shreds....and your attempt is to make this about me?

What a joke.


Too bad you never learned any science.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Darwin's theory is unproven.
This statement alone demonstrates that you don't have a complete grasp on the discipline you are arguing.


Ready?


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


In your face, boy.
 

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Darwin's theory is unproven.
This statement alone demonstrates that you don't have a complete grasp on the discipline you are arguing.


Ready?


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


In your face, boy.
But then, Dean H. Kenyon is a physicist, not a biologist, and is a lifetime member of the Intelligent design club, being one of the founders. In other words, he's an idiot who couldn't describe a species if his life depended on it.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
This statement alone demonstrates that you don't have a complete grasp on the discipline you are arguing.


Ready?


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


In your face, boy.
But then, Dean H. Kenyon is a physicist, not a biologist, and is a lifetime member of the Intelligent design club, being one of the founders. In other words, he's an idiot who couldn't describe a species if his life depended on it.


Two facts are pertinent here:

1. Kenyon is correct

2. You're a revealed liar.
 

orogenicman

Darwin was a pastafarian
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
8,546
Reaction score
826
Points
175
Ready?


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


In your face, boy.
But then, Dean H. Kenyon is a physicist, not a biologist, and is a lifetime member of the Intelligent design club, being one of the founders. In other words, he's an idiot who couldn't describe a species if his life depended on it.


Two facts are pertinent here:

1. Kenyon is correct

2. You're a revealed liar.
Proving yet again that 'lying for Jesus' is the new norm.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
But then, Dean H. Kenyon is a physicist, not a biologist, and is a lifetime member of the Intelligent design club, being one of the founders. In other words, he's an idiot who couldn't describe a species if his life depended on it.


Two facts are pertinent here:

1. Kenyon is correct

2. You're a revealed liar.
Proving yet again that 'lying for Jesus' is the new norm.




As you are the only documented liar around here, does your post mean that you've found religion?

Congrats.
 

Steven_R

Tommy Vercetti Fan Club
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
4,852
Reaction score
922
Points
245
Ready?


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


In your face, boy.
But then, Dean H. Kenyon is a physicist, not a biologist, and is a lifetime member of the Intelligent design club, being one of the founders. In other words, he's an idiot who couldn't describe a species if his life depended on it.


Two facts are pertinent here:

1. Kenyon is correct

2. You're a revealed liar.
1. Define species.
1a. Explain ring species.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,531
Reaction score
28,532
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
But then, Dean H. Kenyon is a physicist, not a biologist, and is a lifetime member of the Intelligent design club, being one of the founders. In other words, he's an idiot who couldn't describe a species if his life depended on it.


Two facts are pertinent here:

1. Kenyon is correct

2. You're a revealed liar.
1. Define species.
1a. Explain ring species.





Post #32 was the questions posed by the OP.....and designed to separate those with a scientific orientation from the posers and wannabees......

You skipped those questions.

Seems you were afraid to address them.....


You and the others like you who spring to the defense of Darwinian theory never learned to question, to look at the underpinnings of your less-than-intuitive understanding of science.....


Marks you as the second group.....those who are incapable of questioning orthodoxy.
Or, for short......a dunce.
 

SmedlyButler

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
1,471
Reaction score
435
Points
130
Location
Hopeville
Besides falling far short of achieving your goal of "destroying Darwinism" you disappoint greatly in not sourcing your material more diligently. It's not worth the time it takes to track each item independently and as another critic says the quotes seem randomly gleaned from creationist sites. I recognize some from the United Church of God web site. You realize of course that it is easier to carry on a coherent conversation if each person knows where the other has gathered his debate points. I'm sure your failure to source is not an attempt to pass off material as original when it is demonstrably not.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top