Discarding Darwin???

[PoliticalChic]

He might have a point. He might even be right, but until he's producing peer-reviewed work in journals and conferences he's just another guy talking.

Produce the work to back up the proposition.

Let's agree that Darwinian supporters should be able to answer the following questions.

If you cannot, well....then let's agree that you're simply another religious fanatic of the Darwinian persuasion....with no understanding of what you fervently believe.

...and "belief sans understanding" could be called 'faith.'




1. Darwin's theory revolves around his idea of random mutations gradually leading to new species.
His erstwhile defender, Stephen Gould, realized that this didn't fit the facts....so, based on his inveterate Marxism, he devised "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.

Yet...numbskulls accept both as correct. Where is their explanation?




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?




3. All of those new and original organs and body forms each require new and specific arrangements of DNA, the nucleic acid which serves a blueprint for each structure. To be clear, 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.

a. " If you really want a glimpse at how complex "simple organisms" are, and how incredible it is that anyone could believe they spontaneously formed by chance, just consider the cell's nucleus.

This organelle contains DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), a coiled supermolecule, a "digitally coded" database containing the roughly 4,000,000 pieces of information (nucleotide base pairs) required to replicate the cell.

And nucleotide sequencing along the DNA supermolecule must be exact "to the nucleotide" or results could be disastrous." 5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org

Yet...numbskulls pretend that they have some explanation for the new DNA. Where is their explanation?




4. The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

a." Some scientists are now trying to show how RNA was "spontaneously formed" and subsequently advanced to DNA.

Why the new theory?

DNA, they have determined, is too complex to have been formed by the "random encounters of chemicals."

This is correct.

The odds of "random creation" of just 3% of the human genome are, conservatively, 1 in 10 to the 45 millionth power.
This far exceeds the total number of collective events of hundreds of trillions of universes like ours.

Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.

And how did it, in turn, "randomly form to DNA?"
5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org

Yet...numbskulls ignore the time and possibility restrictions. Where is their explanation?







"...great questions often make very good science.

Unsolved mysteries provide science with motivation and direction. Gaps in the road to scientific knowledge are not potholes to be avoided, but opportunities to be exploited."
In Praise of Hard Questions

because something is unlikely does not mean it can't happen.

that aside, if you are saying that the theory of evolution is incorrect what do you claim is a better explanation for the diversity of life on the planet?

"...that aside, if you are saying that the theory of evolution is incorrect what do you claim is a better explanation for the diversity of life on the planet?"

I try to be precise in my language....you should attempt to do the same.
It is Darwin's thesis that is in question.




"because something is unlikely does not mean it can't happen."

The unlikely event that, optimist that I am, might....might.....occur,is the Darwin devotees agreeing to the flaws pointed out in the OP.



Once that occurs......the real question becomes apparent.

 

[ogibillm]

Let's agree that Darwinian supporters should be able to answer the following questions.

If you cannot, well....then let's agree that you're simply another religious fanatic of the Darwinian persuasion....with no understanding of what you fervently believe.

...and "belief sans understanding" could be called 'faith.'




1. Darwin's theory revolves around his idea of random mutations gradually leading to new species.
His erstwhile defender, Stephen Gould, realized that this didn't fit the facts....so, based on his inveterate Marxism, he devised "Punctuated Equalibrium," which is, in fact, the opposite of Darwinism....it claims changes are sudden, spontaneous.

Yet...numbskulls accept both as correct. Where is their explanation?




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?




3. All of those new and original organs and body forms each require new and specific arrangements of DNA, the nucleic acid which serves a blueprint for each structure. To be clear, 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.

a. " If you really want a glimpse at how complex "simple organisms" are, and how incredible it is that anyone could believe they spontaneously formed by chance, just consider the cell's nucleus.

This organelle contains DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), a coiled supermolecule, a "digitally coded" database containing the roughly 4,000,000 pieces of information (nucleotide base pairs) required to replicate the cell.

And nucleotide sequencing along the DNA supermolecule must be exact "to the nucleotide" or results could be disastrous." 5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org

Yet...numbskulls pretend that they have some explanation for the new DNA. Where is their explanation?




4. The time period from the Pre-Cambrian until we find all sorts of new organism, the Cambrian, is not one that allows both the creation of the specific DNA sequence by random mechanisms for each organ and body form,.....remember that these structures must occur in just the right order.

a." Some scientists are now trying to show how RNA was "spontaneously formed" and subsequently advanced to DNA.

Why the new theory?

DNA, they have determined, is too complex to have been formed by the "random encounters of chemicals."

This is correct.

The odds of "random creation" of just 3% of the human genome are, conservatively, 1 in 10 to the 45 millionth power.
This far exceeds the total number of collective events of hundreds of trillions of universes like ours.

Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.

And how did it, in turn, "randomly form to DNA?"
5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: Reason #1—ReligiouslyIncorrect.org

Yet...numbskulls ignore the time and possibility restrictions. Where is their explanation?







"...great questions often make very good science.

Unsolved mysteries provide science with motivation and direction. Gaps in the road to scientific knowledge are not potholes to be avoided, but opportunities to be exploited."
In Praise of Hard Questions

because something is unlikely does not mean it can't happen.

that aside, if you are saying that the theory of evolution is incorrect what do you claim is a better explanation for the diversity of life on the planet?

"...that aside, if you are saying that the theory of evolution is incorrect what do you claim is a better explanation for the diversity of life on the planet?"

I try to be precise in my language....you should attempt to do the same.
It is Darwin's thesis that is in question.




"because something is unlikely does not mean it can't happen."

The unlikely event that, optimist that I am, might....might.....occur,is the Darwin devotees agreeing to the flaws pointed out in the OP.



Once that occurs......the real question becomes apparent.

again - pretending that modern evolutionary theory is the same as 'darwinism' is a bit misleading.

but, assuming we are talking about modern evolutionary theory - and if we aren't this thread is pointless - what theory would you propose better explains the diversity of life on this planet?

 

[PoliticalChic]

because something is unlikely does not mean it can't happen.

that aside, if you are saying that the theory of evolution is incorrect what do you claim is a better explanation for the diversity of life on the planet?

"...that aside, if you are saying that the theory of evolution is incorrect what do you claim is a better explanation for the diversity of life on the planet?"

I try to be precise in my language....you should attempt to do the same.
It is Darwin's thesis that is in question.




"because something is unlikely does not mean it can't happen."

The unlikely event that, optimist that I am, might....might.....occur,is the Darwin devotees agreeing to the flaws pointed out in the OP.



Once that occurs......the real question becomes apparent.

again - pretending that modern evolutionary theory is the same as 'darwinism' is a bit misleading.

but, assuming we are talking about modern evolutionary theory - and if we aren't this thread is pointless - what theory would you propose better explains the diversity of life on this planet?

Are you accepting that you cannot answer the four questions that I have posed?

...and if you cannot.....what does that say about your understanding of evolutionary theory?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have always held it to be true that believing in evolution, does not mean you cannot believe in a God.
In fact, many of the holes in purely evolutionary theory can be filled with intelligent design.
I will also hold to the belief that the truth usually lies in the middle.
To dismiss evolution is to dismiss overwhelming proof to the point of ridiculousness.
At the same time, there are a great many things that cannot be explained by empirical evidence.

 

[ogibillm]

"...that aside, if you are saying that the theory of evolution is incorrect what do you claim is a better explanation for the diversity of life on the planet?"

I try to be precise in my language....you should attempt to do the same.
It is Darwin's thesis that is in question.




"because something is unlikely does not mean it can't happen."

The unlikely event that, optimist that I am, might....might.....occur,is the Darwin devotees agreeing to the flaws pointed out in the OP.



Once that occurs......the real question becomes apparent.

again - pretending that modern evolutionary theory is the same as 'darwinism' is a bit misleading.

but, assuming we are talking about modern evolutionary theory - and if we aren't this thread is pointless - what theory would you propose better explains the diversity of life on this planet?

Are you accepting that you cannot answer the four questions that I have posed?

...and if you cannot.....what does that say about your understanding of evolutionary theory?

it says i'm not an evolutionary biologist - and that i can also use google.

1 and 2 are the same question. evolution is believed to occur both with small changes and with larger, punctuated changes.
if you do not believe that to be true what is your more competing theory?

3 and 4 are the same question too - evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, or how it started. you may find some research into protobionts interesting though.


so, if you do not find that the modern theory of evolution answers these questions completely enough which competing scientific theory do you propose is a better theory for the diversity of life on the planet?

 

[natstew]

Okay, just gotta get in here, not as an expert on anything, but rather a seeker of truth and knowledge.

I saw a science documentary recently that pointed to the effects radiation from a Super Sun Flair could have on DNA. It's a relatively new idea and I don't know if it's been applied to evolution theory yet or not, but if major changes in life on Earth can be proven to occur at the same time or very close to Super Radiation bursts from the Sun, they could very likely be linked. The strength of the Earth's protective magnetic field must also be figured into the theory. The Earth's magnetic field pulses from very weak to it's maximum strength then dies out to it's weakest and switches poles before beginning the cycle again. Even a moderate Solar Flair could have a life changing effect on DNA at the time of the magnetic Field's weakest point.
There are scientists doing research on this as we discuss it.

 

[natstew]

At this point in my life I credit GOD with it all. It's the most logical of all my theories at this time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have always held it to be true that believing in evolution, does not mean you cannot believe in a God.
In fact, many of the holes in purely evolutionary theory can be filled with intelligent design.
I will also hold to the belief that the truth usually lies in the middle.
To dismiss evolution is to dismiss overwhelming proof to the point of ridiculousness.
At the same time, there are a great many things that cannot be explained by empirical evidence.

"I have always held it to be true that believing in evolution, does not mean you cannot believe in a God."


I have no desire to change the topic to one you have raises.

How about this:
"I have always held it to be true that believing in evolution, does not mean you have to believe Darwin's theory."

How's that?

 

[ogibillm]

At this point in my life I credit GOD with it all. It's the most logical of all my theories at this time.

which is all well and good, but it's not exactly scientific.

 

[PoliticalChic]

again - pretending that modern evolutionary theory is the same as 'darwinism' is a bit misleading.

but, assuming we are talking about modern evolutionary theory - and if we aren't this thread is pointless - what theory would you propose better explains the diversity of life on this planet?

Are you accepting that you cannot answer the four questions that I have posed?

...and if you cannot.....what does that say about your understanding of evolutionary theory?

it says i'm not an evolutionary biologist - and that i can also use google.

1 and 2 are the same question. evolution is believed to occur both with small changes and with larger, punctuated changes.
if you do not believe that to be true what is your more competing theory?

3 and 4 are the same question too - evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, or how it started. you may find some research into protobionts interesting though.


so, if you do not find that the modern theory of evolution answers these questions completely enough which competing scientific theory do you propose is a better theory for the diversity of life on the planet?

"...and that i can also use google..."

A backhanded remark.

Let me return the favor:

What you haven't demonstrated it the ability to think.

 

[PoliticalChic]

At this point in my life I credit GOD with it all. It's the most logical of all my theories at this time.

which is all well and good, but it's not exactly scientific.

Nor is Darwin's theory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nor is PC's criticism.

 

[Toro]

Did you find any reference to God, religion, or the Bible in the OP?

Your attempt to discredit the OP is fallacious.

From item #1: "....because it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds."

Why do we get a different flu shot every year?

I'd rather not change the subject.


Why is it you do?

The reason why I do get a flu shot every year is in part because the virus evolves and adapts over time, as Darwin says.

If we "Discard Darwin," we wouldn't do that.

And many other things in modern medicine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do we get a different flu shot every year?

I'd rather not change the subject.


Why is it you do?

The reason why I do get a flu shot every year is in part because the virus evolves and adapts over time, as Darwin says.

If we "Discard Darwin," we wouldn't do that.

And many other things in modern medicine.

Now....be careful with your answer:

So you believe that each year we are dealing with a new species?



An incorrect response will show that you have no understanding of evolutionary theory.

 

[natstew]

At this point in my life I credit GOD with it all. It's the most logical of all my theories at this time.

which is all well and good, but it's not exactly scientific.

Oh, but it is! It makes more logic than the whole universe and everything in it having no rhyme or reason.
The word, GOD, when used by me is open ended, on both ends, meaning I have no more understanding of it than the moment of the "Big Bang" and before.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nor is PC's criticism.

Another brilliant well supported post from the human version of a Chinese-food carry-out container.

 

[ogibillm]

At this point in my life I credit GOD with it all. It's the most logical of all my theories at this time.

which is all well and good, but it's not exactly scientific.

Nor is Darwin's theory.

what would you say is unscientific about it? modern evolutionary theory is supported by observation of the physical world.

what do you believe makes it unscientific?

 

[ScienceRocks]

What degree do you have? All you do is smear and whine without a clue about the topic you're attacking. Is there anything within observation you agree with?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What degree do you have? All you do is smear and whine without a clue about the topic you're attacking. Is there anything within observation you agree with?

With respect to the OP...and any others....I never smear....that's your mode of operation.

I provide facts.....notice you haven't been able to deny any thing I've posted.
Probably because you didn't understand any of it.




Let's be honest...you're a moron who constantly attempts to chest-thump about respect for science.
What upsets you is that my posts reveal both your ignorance, and the fact that you are as phony as a three-dollar bill.

Now, this is funny: "...and whine without a clue about the topic you're attacking."
It's pretty clear that I do understand the topic....and that is your problem: my challenge proves that you don't.



I remind that you were too gutless to attempt to respond to the questions that reveal the fundamental weakness of Darwin's theory.


You're so stupid that you couldn't make it into Jeff Dunham's act.



Did you leave the stove on?
.....Cause you just got burned.

 

[PoliticalChic]

which is all well and good, but it's not exactly scientific.

Nor is Darwin's theory.

what would you say is unscientific about it? modern evolutionary theory is supported by observation of the physical world.

what do you believe makes it unscientific?

"...modern evolutionary theory is supported by observation..."


Hogwash.


"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.



Stick to the truth.