Discarding Darwin???

[Old Rocks]

Until someone is presenting groundbreaking science in the places where scientists do their work, it is meaningless. Talking to a reporter about how you're going to bring down the scientific establishment without producing the work is akin to standing on a street corner with a sign proclaiming "the End is Near!"

Produce the work that "Darwinism" is wrong and convince the scientific community.

"...Talking to a reporter about how you're going to bring down the scientific establishment..."

Produce the reference to bringing down the scientific establishment. You made that up, didn't you.



BTW....providing proof that Darwin's theory is wrong is child's play.

Convincing children who are programmed to accept without question....that's another story.

LOL. So scientists have been blindly supporting a false theory for 150 years? When you have something of substance to show, give us a call. Thus far, you have presented nothing worthy of even the National Enquirer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Until someone is presenting groundbreaking science in the places where scientists do their work, it is meaningless. Talking to a reporter about how you're going to bring down the scientific establishment without producing the work is akin to standing on a street corner with a sign proclaiming "the End is Near!"

Produce the work that "Darwinism" is wrong and convince the scientific community.

"...Talking to a reporter about how you're going to bring down the scientific establishment..."

Produce the reference to bringing down the scientific establishment. You made that up, didn't you.



BTW....providing proof that Darwin's theory is wrong is child's play.

Convincing children who are programmed to accept without question....that's another story.

LOL. So scientists have been blindly supporting a false theory for 150 years? When you have something of substance to show, give us a call. Thus far, you have presented nothing worthy of even the National Enquirer.

There's no prize for 'stupid.'

Stop competing.



Watch how easily I put you in your place.....last seat in the dumb row:

Believe Darwin's theory?

Then answer the four questions I provided in post #17.




Be clear: if you can't....you've simply accepted a myth without thinking.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

You use a quote from a creationist (I believe a young-Earth creationist), Discovery Institute fellow, as part of a court case which actually found teaching creationism in science class unconstitutional, as some sort of proof that there is no observable evidence of evolution?

And you then have the gall to say 'Stick to the truth'?

Perhaps if you used a quote from a court case that was won, or from a source a bit less controversial than a Discovery Institute member, or even explained why this particular person should be listened to over the myriad other scientists in relevant fields who disagree with his assessment, your point would carry more weight.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You use a quote from a creationist (I believe a young-Earth creationist), Discovery Institute fellow, as part of a court case which actually found teaching creationism in science class unconstitutional, as some sort of proof that there is no observable evidence of evolution?

And you then have the gall to say 'Stick to the truth'?

Perhaps if you used a quote from a court case that was won, or from a source a bit less controversial than a Discovery Institute member, or even explained why this particular person should be listened to over the myriad other scientists in relevant fields who disagree with his assessment, your point would carry more weight.

Seems more than lame to criticize the court case rather than the truth of the statement.

Perhaps you'd like to produce the evidence that the quote is untrue.

 

[Montrovant]

"...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.

You use a quote from a creationist (I believe a young-Earth creationist), Discovery Institute fellow, as part of a court case which actually found teaching creationism in science class unconstitutional, as some sort of proof that there is no observable evidence of evolution?

And you then have the gall to say 'Stick to the truth'?

Perhaps if you used a quote from a court case that was won, or from a source a bit less controversial than a Discovery Institute member, or even explained why this particular person should be listened to over the myriad other scientists in relevant fields who disagree with his assessment, your point would carry more weight.

Seems more than lame to criticize the court case rather than the truth of the statement.

Perhaps you'd like to produce the evidence that the quote is untrue.

If you'd paid attention, I criticized the source of the quote as well.

But sure, I can do an internet search for you if you're too lazy.

Here's one particular article :
Speciation

Or here's a string of search results :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=speciation+examples

A slightly different wording :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=examples+of+speciation

Still, perhaps you are right. Perhaps, instead of simply doing a basic search, I should take the word of a Discovery Institute creationist from a court case that was lost.

And just in case you are going to ask for evidence of Mr. Kenyon's ID/creationist leanings but still feel unable to do a search yourself :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dean+h.+kenyon

 

[PoliticalChic]

You use a quote from a creationist (I believe a young-Earth creationist), Discovery Institute fellow, as part of a court case which actually found teaching creationism in science class unconstitutional, as some sort of proof that there is no observable evidence of evolution?

And you then have the gall to say 'Stick to the truth'?

Perhaps if you used a quote from a court case that was won, or from a source a bit less controversial than a Discovery Institute member, or even explained why this particular person should be listened to over the myriad other scientists in relevant fields who disagree with his assessment, your point would carry more weight.

Seems more than lame to criticize the court case rather than the truth of the statement.

Perhaps you'd like to produce the evidence that the quote is untrue.

If you'd paid attention, I criticized the source of the quote as well.

But sure, I can do an internet search for you if you're too lazy.

Here's one particular article :
Speciation

Or here's a string of search results :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=speciation+examples

A slightly different wording :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=examples+of+speciation

Still, perhaps you are right. Perhaps, instead of simply doing a basic search, I should take the word of a Discovery Institute creationist from a court case that was lost.

And just in case you are going to ask for evidence of Mr. Kenyon's ID/creationist leanings but still feel unable to do a search yourself :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dean+h.+kenyon

Seems you were too lazy to even read your link:

"All forms of natural speciation have taken place over the course of evolution, though it still remains a subject of debate as to the relative importance of each mechanism in driving biodiversity."

1. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



Do you understand the significance of “so do we” ?


On the assumption that you are too lazy to actually look into same, let me help you.


There has never been an observation, either in the laboratory or in nature, or a new species being formed.


As you may be too lazy to look up the definition of 'never,' here it is:
not ever : at no time
Never - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



2. So, "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."
speciation definition

The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."
speciation (biology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica



As the term is often used carelessly, especially by those with a need to support Darwin's flawed theory, let me remind that not all change can be called 'speciation' in the evolutionary sense.


3. 'But sometimes speciation is not the kind of speciation that would fit Darwin's mechanism for evolution. Consider this: in the 1920's, Russian biologist Georgii Karpechenko crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. They had the roots of the cabbage and the leaves of the radish.

These plants could breed with each other but not with either the cabbage or radish ancestors, so Karpechenko had produced a new species......right? Not in the evolutionary sense. No new DNA had been produced. The mechanism was by the spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number in somatic cells that went on to form gametes (by meiosis). Thus these contained 18 chromosomes — a complete set of both cabbage (n=9) and radish (n=9) chromosomes. Polyploidy


Nuanced? Perhaps, but one need understand the biology on a more technical level in order to see that this is not proof of Darwin's theory.

Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. This was common for thousands of years before Darwin.
In order for Darwin's theory to be correct, the changes must result in new structures that did not exist before.


Evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, explains that polyploidy "does not confer major new morphological characteristics... [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera" or higher levels in the biological hierarchy."
Douglas J. Futuyma, "Evolution," p. 398.




I certainly hope you weren't too lazy to try to understand that.

 

[Montrovant]

Seems more than lame to criticize the court case rather than the truth of the statement.

Perhaps you'd like to produce the evidence that the quote is untrue.

If you'd paid attention, I criticized the source of the quote as well.

But sure, I can do an internet search for you if you're too lazy.

Here's one particular article :
Speciation

Or here's a string of search results :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=speciation+examples

A slightly different wording :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=examples+of+speciation

Still, perhaps you are right. Perhaps, instead of simply doing a basic search, I should take the word of a Discovery Institute creationist from a court case that was lost.

And just in case you are going to ask for evidence of Mr. Kenyon's ID/creationist leanings but still feel unable to do a search yourself :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dean+h.+kenyon

Seems you were too lazy to even read your link:

"All forms of natural speciation have taken place over the course of evolution, though it still remains a subject of debate as to the relative importance of each mechanism in driving biodiversity."

1. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



Do you understand the significance of “so do we” ?


On the assumption that you are too lazy to actually look into same, let me help you.


There has never been an observation, either in the laboratory or in nature, or a new species being formed.


As you may be too lazy to look up the definition of 'never,' here it is:
not ever : at no time
Never - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



2. So, "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."
speciation definition

The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."
speciation (biology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica



As the term is often used carelessly, especially by those with a need to support Darwin's flawed theory, let me remind that not all change can be called 'speciation' in the evolutionary sense.


3. 'But sometimes speciation is not the kind of speciation that would fit Darwin's mechanism for evolution. Consider this: in the 1920's, Russian biologist Georgii Karpechenko crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. They had the roots of the cabbage and the leaves of the radish.

These plants could breed with each other but not with either the cabbage or radish ancestors, so Karpechenko had produced a new species......right? Not in the evolutionary sense. No new DNA had been produced. The mechanism was by the spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number in somatic cells that went on to form gametes (by meiosis). Thus these contained 18 chromosomes — a complete set of both cabbage (n=9) and radish (n=9) chromosomes. Polyploidy


Nuanced? Perhaps, but one need understand the biology on a more technical level in order to see that this is not proof of Darwin's theory.

Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. This was common for thousands of years before Darwin.
In order for Darwin's theory to be correct, the changes must result in new structures that did not exist before.


Evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, explains that polyploidy "does not confer major new morphological characteristics... [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera" or higher levels in the biological hierarchy."
Douglas J. Futuyma, "Evolution," p. 398.




I certainly hope you weren't too lazy to try to understand that.

Let me make sure I've got this right. You are trying to say that an article which gives examples of both natural and artificial speciation does not give any examples of speciation?

Once again, examples were given of new species being formed. Unless you are claiming that the only examples were polyploidy, or that polyploidy is not speciation, or some other claim you have yet to clearly state, perhaps you should avoid using these strawman arguments.

You gave a quote that no animal species has ever been observed arising from another species. I gave links to examples of exactly that. If you'd care to modify the argument, feel free, but I've already shown the error in that quote.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you'd paid attention, I criticized the source of the quote as well.

But sure, I can do an internet search for you if you're too lazy.

Here's one particular article :
Speciation

Or here's a string of search results :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=speciation+examples

A slightly different wording :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=examples+of+speciation

Still, perhaps you are right. Perhaps, instead of simply doing a basic search, I should take the word of a Discovery Institute creationist from a court case that was lost.

And just in case you are going to ask for evidence of Mr. Kenyon's ID/creationist leanings but still feel unable to do a search yourself :
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dean+h.+kenyon

Seems you were too lazy to even read your link:

"All forms of natural speciation have taken place over the course of evolution, though it still remains a subject of debate as to the relative importance of each mechanism in driving biodiversity."

1. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



Do you understand the significance of “so do we” ?


On the assumption that you are too lazy to actually look into same, let me help you.


There has never been an observation, either in the laboratory or in nature, or a new species being formed.


As you may be too lazy to look up the definition of 'never,' here it is:
not ever : at no time
Never - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



2. So, "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."
speciation definition

The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."
speciation (biology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica



As the term is often used carelessly, especially by those with a need to support Darwin's flawed theory, let me remind that not all change can be called 'speciation' in the evolutionary sense.


3. 'But sometimes speciation is not the kind of speciation that would fit Darwin's mechanism for evolution. Consider this: in the 1920's, Russian biologist Georgii Karpechenko crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. They had the roots of the cabbage and the leaves of the radish.

These plants could breed with each other but not with either the cabbage or radish ancestors, so Karpechenko had produced a new species......right? Not in the evolutionary sense. No new DNA had been produced. The mechanism was by the spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number in somatic cells that went on to form gametes (by meiosis). Thus these contained 18 chromosomes — a complete set of both cabbage (n=9) and radish (n=9) chromosomes. Polyploidy


Nuanced? Perhaps, but one need understand the biology on a more technical level in order to see that this is not proof of Darwin's theory.

Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. This was common for thousands of years before Darwin.
In order for Darwin's theory to be correct, the changes must result in new structures that did not exist before.


Evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, explains that polyploidy "does not confer major new morphological characteristics... [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera" or higher levels in the biological hierarchy."
Douglas J. Futuyma, "Evolution," p. 398.




I certainly hope you weren't too lazy to try to understand that.

Let me make sure I've got this right. You are trying to say that an article which gives examples of both natural and artificial speciation does not give any examples of speciation?

Once again, examples were given of new species being formed. Unless you are claiming that the only examples were polyploidy, or that polyploidy is not speciation, or some other claim you have yet to clearly state, perhaps you should avoid using these strawman arguments.

You gave a quote that no animal species has ever been observed arising from another species. I gave links to examples of exactly that. If you'd care to modify the argument, feel free, but I've already shown the error in that quote.

1. "You are trying to say that an article which gives examples of both natural and artificial speciation does not give any examples of speciation?"

I'm saying that you confuse changes of various kinds with the term speciation as it applies to an explanation of Darwin's theory.

"For the theory to be taken seriously, therefore, it needs to posit a mechanism for increasing genetic information. It needs to be able to explain how living things without eyes, ears, hearts, lungs, wings, feet, and other organs and systems came to acquire them, and where the genetic information describing such systems and organs came from."
THE ERRORS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES BOOKLET

And, no... polyploidy is not speciation.


2. "If you'd care to modify the argument, feel free, but I've already shown the error in that quote."

No, you haven't.
What you have done is reveal that you miss the basic biology of meiosis, which is necessary to see why polyploidy would not support Darwin's theory.

The process of one species becoming another, new DNA that wasn't simply a re-ordering of original DNA, has never been accomplished.





It has been 150 years or so the idea of speciation by evolutionary mechanisms has remained a claim....but no more than a claim.

And many scientists have written about exactly that:

a. "…[N]atural communities harbour an enormous variety of species… But what of the origin of diversity? Much less has been written about how new species arise-although the process of speciation is central to evolutionary biology."
Cornell professor Richard G. Harrison, "Diverse origins of biodiversity", Nature, vol. 411, June 7, 2001, pp. 635-636


Mating patterns have been changed by simple geographic isolation.
Beak struct has been seen to be changed.
But no new DNA has been created.....the process necessary to confirm Darwin's theory.

Never....has one species been changed into another.


b. "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruit flies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruit fly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species."
Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines", p. 475


And all sorts of fables have been tried. In high school, students are taught about the Peppered Moth as an example of evolution.



The variation in the population between light colored and dared colored moths are observed. When industrial smoke darkened the trees, the percentage of dark moths increased, due to their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged.

You wouldn't say a change in species has occurred...would you?

 

[Montrovant]

So again, unless you are trying to claim that all the given examples of speciation were polyploidy, you don't have much point in harping on that.

Again, the quote you gave by a creationist from a court case in which the court ruled those using him as an expert were trying to push religion rather than science, was that no one has ever observed a new animal species arise from an old one. I've provided examples of that. Any attempt by you to change the question, or use a personal definition for speciation, or discredit polyploidy examples and ignore non-polyploidy examples is your own issue.

If you want to ask whether a new genus has been observed being created or something like that, then do so.

 

[Abraham3]

As has been evident on this board, folks become incensed when offered facts that interfere with what they have been ordered to believe.

And, wow....has that been true of my critiques of Darwin's theory!!!

The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.

And he writes......

3. Darwin's landmark work...The Origin of Species, ...doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies).

Origin of Species was published in 1859. The amount of biological knowledge discovered since then - knowledge of which Darwin was completely unaware - is orders of magnitude larger than his entire knowledge of biology. Origin of Species started the science and study of evolution. It does not define it, contain it or constrain it.

[....there are still many things we don’t understand about how chromatin is managed, how micro-RNA is regulated, when and why DNA methylases come into play, the relative importance (or unimportance) of translocases, and much, much more.

All of which have virtually nothing to do with the process of evolution.

To assert that we understand how speciation occurs is to assert a half-truth.

To suggest that we do not understand it is to assert a lie.

4. .... evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," a tautology that explains nothing. ("Fittest" means most able to survive. Survival of the fittest means survival of those who survive.)

This comment makes it embarrassingly clear that the author is an absolute amateur regarding evolution - or perhaps he has been dishonest about his qualifications. Evolutionary theory is not based on "survival of the fittest". That is a mass media meme. The process at the core of evolution is reproductive success.

5. ... we were taught that mutations [ the kind the give rise to single-nucleotide polymorphisms.. it’s been demonstrated many times that the majority of non-neutral point mutations are deleterious, leading to loss of function, not gain of function.

Spend some time reading about “Muller’s ratchet” if you don’t believe me..] in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited.
The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious..... Most mutations lead to loss of function, not gain of function.

More evidence that the author does not know what he's talking about. The majority of single-nucleotide polymorphisms are benign. The proteins making up our nucleotides have been selected - by evolutionary processes - to have stable hydrophobicity upon single nucleotide replacements. Hydrophobicity controls protein folding and folding controls selective activity. The most likely outcome of a single protein transposition is NOTHING.[/QUOTE]

 

[PoliticalChic]

So again, unless you are trying to claim that all the given examples of speciation were polyploidy, you don't have much point in harping on that.

Again, the quote you gave by a creationist from a court case in which the court ruled those using him as an expert were trying to push religion rather than science, was that no one has ever observed a new animal species arise from an old one. I've provided examples of that. Any attempt by you to change the question, or use a personal definition for speciation, or discredit polyploidy examples and ignore non-polyploidy examples is your own issue.

If you want to ask whether a new genus has been observed being created or something like that, then do so.

It seems that you are content to simply close your eyes, and cover your ears...and the 150 year unproven theory.

Or....you just don't have the background necessary to understand that lack of scientific proof involved in Darwinism.



How about this approach:


1. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,
"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton (Signee of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism)


What is your response?

Is Linton lying? And why would he...the profit both career-wise and status-wise would be to say the opposite.

After all, many have lost their jobs in denying Darwin.

Explain.





And, after that, explain these:


2. Lynn Margulis attended the University of Chicago, earned a master's degree in Biological Sciences from theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison in 1960, and received her Ph.D. in 1963 in the faculty of Biological Sciences from UC Berkeley in Botany. Lynn Margulis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change [which] led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
― Lynn Margulis
b. “New mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”
― Lynn Margulis
c. . "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt.
As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471



3. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is an American physical anthropologist[1] and professor of biological anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification of primates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300



These are not laymen....they are employed in the realm of science.

Learn from what they are teaching.



And....there are many more.
The less you know about science, the more you believe in Darwinism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As has been evident on this board, folks become incensed when offered facts that interfere with what they have been ordered to believe.

And, wow....has that been true of my critiques of Darwin's theory!!!

The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.

And he writes......

3. Darwin's landmark work...The Origin of Species, ...doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies).

Origin of Species was published in 1859. The amount of biological knowledge discovered since then - knowledge of which Darwin was completely unaware - is orders of magnitude larger than his entire knowledge of biology. Origin of Species started the science and study of evolution. It does not define it, contain it or constrain it.

[....there are still many things we don’t understand about how chromatin is managed, how micro-RNA is regulated, when and why DNA methylases come into play, the relative importance (or unimportance) of translocases, and much, much more.

All of which have virtually nothing to do with the process of evolution.



To suggest that we do not understand it is to assert a lie.

4. .... evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," a tautology that explains nothing. ("Fittest" means most able to survive. Survival of the fittest means survival of those who survive.)

This comment makes it embarrassingly clear that the author is an absolute amateur regarding evolution - or perhaps he has been dishonest about his qualifications. Evolutionary theory is not based on "survival of the fittest". That is a mass media meme. The process at the core of evolution is reproductive success.

5. ... we were taught that mutations [ the kind the give rise to single-nucleotide polymorphisms.. it’s been demonstrated many times that the majority of non-neutral point mutations are deleterious, leading to loss of function, not gain of function.

Spend some time reading about “Muller’s ratchet” if you don’t believe me..] in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited.
The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious..... Most mutations lead to loss of function, not gain of function.

More evidence that the author does not know what he's talking about. The majority of single-nucleotide polymorphisms are benign. The proteins making up our nucleotides have been selected - by evolutionary processes - to have stable hydrophobicity upon single nucleotide replacements. Hydrophobicity controls protein folding and folding controls selective activity. The most likely outcome of a single protein transposition is NOTHING.

[/QUOTE]



Congrats....you show the same dearth of knowledge in this venue as you do about global warming.....another scam.

 

[rdean]

Pat Robertson challenges creationism - CNN

You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.”

Before answering the question, Robertson acknowledged the statement was controversial by saying, “I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this.”

“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.

--------------------

Wow, if you can get a nutjob like Pat Robertson telling these jokers (his word, not mine) to shut up, then how can you not listen?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Montrovant]

So again, unless you are trying to claim that all the given examples of speciation were polyploidy, you don't have much point in harping on that.

Again, the quote you gave by a creationist from a court case in which the court ruled those using him as an expert were trying to push religion rather than science, was that no one has ever observed a new animal species arise from an old one. I've provided examples of that. Any attempt by you to change the question, or use a personal definition for speciation, or discredit polyploidy examples and ignore non-polyploidy examples is your own issue.

If you want to ask whether a new genus has been observed being created or something like that, then do so.

It seems that you are content to simply close your eyes, and cover your ears...and the 150 year unproven theory.

Or....you just don't have the background necessary to understand that lack of scientific proof involved in Darwinism.



How about this approach:


1. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,
"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton (Signee of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism)


What is your response?

Is Linton lying? And why would he...the profit both career-wise and status-wise would be to say the opposite.

After all, many have lost their jobs in denying Darwin.

Explain.





And, after that, explain these:


2. Lynn Margulis attended the University of Chicago, earned a master's degree in Biological Sciences from theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison in 1960, and received her Ph.D. in 1963 in the faculty of Biological Sciences from UC Berkeley in Botany. Lynn Margulis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change [which] led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
― Lynn Margulis
b. “New mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”
― Lynn Margulis
c. . "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt.
As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471



3. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is an American physical anthropologist[1] and professor of biological anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification of primates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300



These are not laymen....they are employed in the realm of science.

Learn from what they are teaching.



And....there are many more.
The less you know about science, the more you believe in Darwinism.

Well, more pointless quotes and rhetoric. Not unexpected, I must admit.

I have made no assertions that all scientists in relevant fields believe in evolution. Nor have I claimed that Darwin was right in all his ideas. What I've done is provide examples of observed speciation, which your quote claimed had never been observed. You have gone on to complain about the type of speciation, the definition of species used, and brought up quotes from scientists who either don't believe in evolution or don't believe certain aspects of evolutionary theory are correct.

I am certain that I could find quotes from scientists in relevant fields that do accept evolutionary theory. Are they lying?

You can try to move goalposts and change the subject all you'd like. You posted a quote, I provided evidence to challenge the assertion in the quote.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So again, unless you are trying to claim that all the given examples of speciation were polyploidy, you don't have much point in harping on that.

Again, the quote you gave by a creationist from a court case in which the court ruled those using him as an expert were trying to push religion rather than science, was that no one has ever observed a new animal species arise from an old one. I've provided examples of that. Any attempt by you to change the question, or use a personal definition for speciation, or discredit polyploidy examples and ignore non-polyploidy examples is your own issue.

If you want to ask whether a new genus has been observed being created or something like that, then do so.

It seems that you are content to simply close your eyes, and cover your ears...and the 150 year unproven theory.

Or....you just don't have the background necessary to understand that lack of scientific proof involved in Darwinism.



How about this approach:


1. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,
"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton (Signee of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism)


What is your response?

Is Linton lying? And why would he...the profit both career-wise and status-wise would be to say the opposite.

After all, many have lost their jobs in denying Darwin.

Explain.





And, after that, explain these:


2. Lynn Margulis attended the University of Chicago, earned a master's degree in Biological Sciences from theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison in 1960, and received her Ph.D. in 1963 in the faculty of Biological Sciences from UC Berkeley in Botany. Lynn Margulis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change [which] led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
― Lynn Margulis
b. “New mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”
― Lynn Margulis
c. . "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt.
As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471



3. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is an American physical anthropologist[1] and professor of biological anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification of primates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed. Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300



These are not laymen....they are employed in the realm of science.

Learn from what they are teaching.



And....there are many more.
The less you know about science, the more you believe in Darwinism.

Well, more pointless quotes and rhetoric. Not unexpected, I must admit.

I have made no assertions that all scientists in relevant fields believe in evolution. Nor have I claimed that Darwin was right in all his ideas. What I've done is provide examples of observed speciation, which your quote claimed had never been observed. You have gone on to complain about the type of speciation, the definition of species used, and brought up quotes from scientists who either don't believe in evolution or don't believe certain aspects of evolutionary theory are correct.

I am certain that I could find quotes from scientists in relevant fields that do accept evolutionary theory. Are they lying?

You can try to move goalposts and change the subject all you'd like. You posted a quote, I provided evidence to challenge the assertion in the quote.

No, you proved no such thing.

What was revealed is that the term speciation has been used in several ways, not all of them related to Darwinian evolution.


The fact that it is simple to find scientists who understand the way the term is misused, and deny that Darwin was correct, supports the OP.

Why do you suppose there are may scientists in fields related to evolution who deny that Darwin was correct?


Simple question directly related to the point.

Response?

 

[Montrovant]

No, you proved no such thing.

What was revealed is that the term speciation has been used in several ways, not all of them related to Darwinian evolution.


The fact that it is simple to find scientists who understand the way the term is misused, and deny that Darwin was correct, supports the OP.

Why do you suppose there are may scientists in fields related to evolution who deny that Darwin was correct?


Simple question directly related to the point.

Response?

To start with, I don't believe I claimed to have proven anything. Rather I provided evidence to counter a claim.

Anyway, to the question : because scientists are human. There is rarely, if ever, going to be total consensus on a subject. However, as far as I have ever seen, a large majority of scientists in relevant fields do accept evolutionary theory. Almost all will likely see errors or misjudgements that Darwin made. He only provided a framework for the beginning of evolutionary theory. So of course scientists will deny that Darwin was correct about any number of things. I think that it is a fairly small minority who would entirely disbelieve evolution, however.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, you proved no such thing.

What was revealed is that the term speciation has been used in several ways, not all of them related to Darwinian evolution.


The fact that it is simple to find scientists who understand the way the term is misused, and deny that Darwin was correct, supports the OP.

Why do you suppose there are may scientists in fields related to evolution who deny that Darwin was correct?


Simple question directly related to the point.

Response?

To start with, I don't believe I claimed to have proven anything. Rather I provided evidence to counter a claim.

Anyway, to the question : because scientists are human. There is rarely, if ever, going to be total consensus on a subject. However, as far as I have ever seen, a large majority of scientists in relevant fields do accept evolutionary theory. Almost all will likely see errors or misjudgements that Darwin made. He only provided a framework for the beginning of evolutionary theory. So of course scientists will deny that Darwin was correct about any number of things. I think that it is a fairly small minority who would entirely disbelieve evolution, however.

"... because scientists are human...."


True, and this is the reason why so many are afraid....actually afraid.....to speak out as the author of the OP article has, and the three examples that I gave above have.


In today's, culture, one loses grants, promotions, and status if one speaks out against the Darwinian theory of evolution.

That's the human part....the other part is the science part.

Science, as defined by the scientific method, is based on repeatable experiments providing the same results.


This has proven not to be possible based on the view that tiny changes which accumulate until new species are formed (speciation), first because most changes in DNA prove harmful/deadly, and secondly, because the changes themselves occur within limitations that prevent Darwinian speciation.


1. Scientists know that the alterations necessary to prove Darwin correct, are deadly.

a."Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | Richard C. Francis




2. Even when changes in DNA is possible....the following explains that the DNA does not remain changed:
Recent studies in which DNA was altered showed an amazing regression to original form.
In a detailed study of the human cell reprogramming process, a group including CiRA researcher Tsuyoshi Tanabe, lecturer Kazutoshi Takahashi, and Professor Shinya Yamanaka has demonstrated that a major obstacle to the creation of iPS cells [ induced pluripotent stem cell.] lies in the maturation stage of the reprogramming process.

The results showed that somatic cell reprogramming is initiated in a large proportion (12-24%) of cells into which reprogramming factors are introduced. However, the success rate of complete reprogramming to ultimately create iPS cells is only around 0.2%, which led the researchers to hypothesize that it was not the initiation of reprogramming, but a later-stage process, that was the obstacle.
"Fig. 1
Photograph showing cells in which reprogramming has been initiated but which are beginning to revert to their state prior to the initiation of reprogramming.
Research Activities | 2013 | News | Newsroom | CiRA | Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University

It seems be evidence of the fixity of species, and evidence against Darwin's assumptions.






"There is rarely, if ever, going to be total consensus on a subject."

Science is not based on consensus.




" I think that it is a fairly small minority who would entirely disbelieve evolution, however."

The issue is Darwin's theory.

Not evolution.

Did you not notice the title of the thread?

Do you realize that there are a number of theories of evolution?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

As has been evident on this board, folks become incensed when offered facts that interfere with what they have been ordered to believe.

And, wow....has that been true of my critiques of Darwin's theory!!!

The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.




And he writes......

1. "... I have a certain amount of discomfort, myself, with evolutionary theory—not because it demeans the nobility of man or denies the Bible, or anything of that sort, but because it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds.

2. Darwin's theory is subject to some very legitimate scientific criticisms. Biologists are, by and large, painfully aware of the theory's shortcomings.




3. Darwin's landmark work...The Origin of Species, ...doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies).

[....there are still many things we don’t understand about how chromatin is managed, how micro-RNA is regulated, when and why DNA methylases come into play, the relative importance (or unimportance) of translocases, and much, much more.

To assert that we understand how speciation occurs is to assert a half-truth. http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2014/02/scientists-should-be-humble-not-arrogant.html]




4. .... evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," a tautology that explains nothing. ("Fittest" means most able to survive. Survival of the fittest means survival of those who survive.)

5. ... we were taught that mutations [ the kind the give rise to single-nucleotide polymorphisms.. it’s been demonstrated many times that the majority of non-neutral point mutations are deleterious, leading to loss of function, not gain of function. Spend some time reading about “Muller’s ratchet” if you don’t believe me..] in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited.
The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious..... Most mutations lead to loss of function, not gain of function.

6. Evolutionary theory, it turns out, is ... terrible at explaining gain of function. It's also terrible at explaining the speed at which speciation occurs.




7. It doesn't explain theCambrian Explosion, for example, or the sudden appearance of intelligence in hominids, or the rapid recovery (and net expansion) of the biosphere in the wake of at least five super-massive extinction events in the most recent 15% of Earth's existence.

.... doesn't mean we should abandon the entire theory....."
Scientific Theory | Today's Big Idea | Big Think





8. "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
assertTrue( ): Scientists should be humble, not arrogant





Wow....does that "vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin!" mirror exactly what happens here on this board!!!





Those who have read some of my earlier OPs will notice how closely Thomas' essay corresponds to everything I've posted....

...gratifying to me, and, I'm sure, most disheartening to those pretend-science wonks who have argued with mine.

That's gratifying, as well.

First, evolutionists (as they simultaneously asserted punctuated equilibrium) dismissed the naysayers who pointed out the general lack of what should be a vast array of unmistakable intermediate forms in the fossil record. Then they claimed that so-called vestigial organs constituted the best evidence for their theory, but that bit of arrogance has fallen apart in the face of recent discoveries. Recently, they have claimed that endogenous retroviruses constituted the very best evidence for their theory, but now we know that ERV's were not initially harmful or the stuff of a common ancestry at all, but elemental, viral genetic material that were passed from one well-established species to another that could not possibly be directly related via ingestion. They are in fact intricately fine-tuned components that perform vital regulatory functions . . . just like a vast number of beneficial bacteria.

This potentiality was anticipated and argued by the “flat earthers” who recognized that the evolutionist’s claim was purely teleological in nature and scientifically presumptuous.

We now know that we wasted trillions of dollars on research that took us in the wrong direction for decades. Had we followed the advice of creationist and ID scientists, we would have arrived at this place of understanding sooner, which is very important with regard to the concerns of disease control and prevention. Gee wiz. And creationism and ID are not real science, because, supposedly, they have no real predictive power. In the meantime, the only discernibly material predictions from the proponents of a Darwinian common ancestry, which is defied by the fossil record, asserts an ambiguous tautology and ultimately rests on the metaphysical and, therefore, unfasifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, have been systematically falsified.

Hmm.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As has been evident on this board, folks become incensed when offered facts that interfere with what they have been ordered to believe.

And, wow....has that been true of my critiques of Darwin's theory!!!

The author of the following, Kas Thomas, has degrees in biology and microbiology, and is a former University of California Regents Fellow, and has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.




And he writes......

1. "... I have a certain amount of discomfort, myself, with evolutionary theory—not because it demeans the nobility of man or denies the Bible, or anything of that sort, but because it's such an incomplete and unsatisfying theory on purely scientific grounds.

2. Darwin's theory is subject to some very legitimate scientific criticisms. Biologists are, by and large, painfully aware of the theory's shortcomings.




3. Darwin's landmark work...The Origin of Species, ...doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies).

[....there are still many things we don’t understand about how chromatin is managed, how micro-RNA is regulated, when and why DNA methylases come into play, the relative importance (or unimportance) of translocases, and much, much more.

To assert that we understand how speciation occurs is to assert a half-truth. http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2014/02/scientists-should-be-humble-not-arrogant.html]




4. .... evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," a tautology that explains nothing. ("Fittest" means most able to survive. Survival of the fittest means survival of those who survive.)

5. ... we were taught that mutations [ the kind the give rise to single-nucleotide polymorphisms.. it’s been demonstrated many times that the majority of non-neutral point mutations are deleterious, leading to loss of function, not gain of function. Spend some time reading about “Muller’s ratchet” if you don’t believe me..] in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited.
The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious..... Most mutations lead to loss of function, not gain of function.

6. Evolutionary theory, it turns out, is ... terrible at explaining gain of function. It's also terrible at explaining the speed at which speciation occurs.




7. It doesn't explain theCambrian Explosion, for example, or the sudden appearance of intelligence in hominids, or the rapid recovery (and net expansion) of the biosphere in the wake of at least five super-massive extinction events in the most recent 15% of Earth's existence.

.... doesn't mean we should abandon the entire theory....."
Scientific Theory | Today's Big Idea | Big Think





8. "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! "
assertTrue( ): Scientists should be humble, not arrogant





Wow....does that "vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin!" mirror exactly what happens here on this board!!!





Those who have read some of my earlier OPs will notice how closely Thomas' essay corresponds to everything I've posted....

...gratifying to me, and, I'm sure, most disheartening to those pretend-science wonks who have argued with mine.

That's gratifying, as well.

First, evolutionists (as they simultaneously asserted punctuated equilibrium) dismissed the naysayers who pointed out the general lack of what should be a vast array of unmistakable intermediate forms in the fossil record. Then they claimed that so-called vestigial organs constituted the best evidence for their theory, but that bit of arrogance has fallen apart in the face of recent discoveries. Recently, they have claimed that endogenous retroviruses constituted the very best evidence for their theory, but now we know that ERV's were not initially harmful or the stuff of a common ancestry at all, but elemental, viral genetic material that were passed from one well-established species to another that could not possibly be directly related via ingestion. They are in fact intricately fine-tuned components that perform vital regulatory functions . . . just like a vast number of beneficial bacteria.

This potentiality was anticipated and argued by the “flat earthers” who recognized that the evolutionist’s claim was purely teleological in nature and scientifically presumptuous.

We now know that we wasted trillions of dollars on research that took us in the wrong direction for decades. Had we followed the advice of creationist and ID scientists, we would have arrived at this place of understanding sooner, which is very important with regard to the concerns of disease control and prevention. Gee wiz. And creationism and ID are not real science, because, supposedly, they have no real predictive power. In the meantime, the only discernibly material predictions from the proponents of a Darwinian common ancestry, which is defied by the fossil record, asserts an ambiguous tautology and ultimately rests on the metaphysical and, therefore, unfasifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, have been systematically falsified.

Hmm.

I wish I had another rep left for you.....


You've hit all the high spots....
I hope some begin to ponder as to why Darwinism is so very important to the Leftist 'weltanschauung.'