PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
Best way to raise the blood pressure of a secular-science advocate is to criticize Darwin.
Which I do...because there is no proof for his theory.
One of my frequent debate-battles partners first claimed that I deny science in stating that Darwinian evolution is flawed as a scientific theory.
He wrote:
" I accept the evidence presented, overwhelming evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, in both cases. [Darwinian evolution and global warming.]
The proof of evolution is present in every cell of your body.
Your 'disproof' of these facts is that you don't want to face reality."
Read carefully....my pal seems to be backing away from Darwin...and smoothly moving over to some other theory...."evolution."
Sure would like him to explain to what theory he now subscribes.....
But....I'd like to respond to my bud, as follows:
I actually understand which aspects of evolution are science, and which aren't.....aren't because the facts run counter to the theory.
Your problem is that you understand science in the same way that a two year old understands mommy's orders: unquestioningly!
Shall I try to teach you?
1. Darwin proposed an idea that changes in organisms occur naturally, and if the changes are helpful to the survival of the organism....they are passed on to progeny. If enough changes accumulate so that the resulting organism is actually unable to reproduce with the original.....that would be a new species.
But....Darwin knew that the changes had to be tiny, as breeders has known for eons. Or else:
a."DarwinÂ’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
Now, pal...since you are unable to find documentation that runs counter to the above.....let's stipulate that I am correct about science up to this point. Fair?
2. Here comes the part where I destroy the idea that you have any cachet, and expertise comparable to mine:
We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species, pre-Cambrian.
QED..... Darwin loses, you lose, I win.
Who says so?
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." (Natural History, 86:12-16)
Now....if none of the Darwinists on the board can refute the above......
....I'd be glad to explain why they, Darwinists, are so quick to accept the 'evidence-less' theory.
Which I do...because there is no proof for his theory.
One of my frequent debate-battles partners first claimed that I deny science in stating that Darwinian evolution is flawed as a scientific theory.
He wrote:
" I accept the evidence presented, overwhelming evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, in both cases. [Darwinian evolution and global warming.]
The proof of evolution is present in every cell of your body.
Your 'disproof' of these facts is that you don't want to face reality."
Read carefully....my pal seems to be backing away from Darwin...and smoothly moving over to some other theory...."evolution."
Sure would like him to explain to what theory he now subscribes.....
But....I'd like to respond to my bud, as follows:
I actually understand which aspects of evolution are science, and which aren't.....aren't because the facts run counter to the theory.
Your problem is that you understand science in the same way that a two year old understands mommy's orders: unquestioningly!
Shall I try to teach you?
1. Darwin proposed an idea that changes in organisms occur naturally, and if the changes are helpful to the survival of the organism....they are passed on to progeny. If enough changes accumulate so that the resulting organism is actually unable to reproduce with the original.....that would be a new species.
But....Darwin knew that the changes had to be tiny, as breeders has known for eons. Or else:
a."DarwinÂ’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
Now, pal...since you are unable to find documentation that runs counter to the above.....let's stipulate that I am correct about science up to this point. Fair?
2. Here comes the part where I destroy the idea that you have any cachet, and expertise comparable to mine:
We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species, pre-Cambrian.
QED..... Darwin loses, you lose, I win.
Who says so?
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." (Natural History, 86:12-16)
Now....if none of the Darwinists on the board can refute the above......
....I'd be glad to explain why they, Darwinists, are so quick to accept the 'evidence-less' theory.
