Evolution or Darwin?

[G.T.]

No, you cherry picked quotes and thought "hey, these look like they'd make good "facts."

Only a fucking retard such as yourself can be so clueless as to how to interpret what she reads. You need to go ahead and re edumacate yourself. You claim to read a lot, but you have zero ability to interpret what you read and further - you're an imbecile.

 

[PredFan]

Hard to believe that you are so stupid that you don't even realize the beating you just took!


Right now, you're probably trying to brush something off your face....you don't realize that it's the floor.




Evolution requires the production of a new species different from the original, you moron.

With all due respect, you are incorrect.

Then you misunderstand the theory of evolution.

I understand it quite well. As many have pointed out to you, it is you that doesn't understand it.

 

[PredFan]

See, you and I have this in common: the letter "i".....

I, for informed.....

...and you for ignorant.



Without the slightest hope of you actually learning....I will still inform:



1. You provided this, without giving credit to the source: "...One sees that the staphylococcus aurius bacteria evolved to become resistant..."

2. Whatever the source, it lacks evidence of a knowledge of science: a genus is always capitalized, a species is never.

As follows:
"Staphylococcus aureus is a bacterium...."
Staphylococcus aureus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




3. The development of resistance is not an example of evolution. It is an example of a mutation, the natural event that results in an alteration of a nucleic acid.
BTW....almost all mutations are harmful, and usually toxic.



4. Evolution requires speciation.....the accumulation of enough mutations, changes, such that the new organism cannot interbreed with the original.


But...you have proven that you are an ignorant wannabe, and no where near capable of debating the subject with me.



The same applies to Rocks, and the other wannabes.
Clearly, I understand what is and what is not "evolution" far more than any of you do.


Be sure to return when you require either another lesson or another spanking.


Dunce.

The microorganism that I was talking about is known as MRSA or Methycillin resistant Staphyloccus Aureus. It is in fact a mutation which is the very bread and butter of evolution. A living thing mutating is evolution in action. You cannot evade that simply by claiming it isn't so.

MRSA is a dangerous microorganism and we in the medical community wish like hell that your false claim about mutations being harmful and/or toxic was true.

You really need to stop building evolutionary strawmen. Speciation doesn't occur overnight and the change from the harmless Satphyloccus Aureus to MRSA is as close to speciation as anyone is likely to see in one lifetime.

We have to get a new flu shot every year, why? Because the flu virus is constantly evolving, so much so that the antibodies built up to fight it no longer work. A virus cannot accomplish that with simply a minor change in one protein, it requires a significant mutation or mutations. It is evolution, right in front of your eyes.

" It is in fact a mutation which is the very bread and butter of evolution. A living thing mutating is evolution in action."

No it isn't.

It is simply a mutation.

It is evolution happening right in front of your eyes.

 

[PredFan]

The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity - Telegraph

Yeah but the Pope is the devil so of course he would say that.

 

[PredFan]

Doesn't it pique your interest why our friend argues about the location of the quote but not the truth of same?

Now....why is that?


Because Gould actually verifies exactly what I've been saying....and you members of the religion of Darwinism fear the truth.



After all.....what would it mean if my premise is correct?




OMG! I almost advised you to 'think for yourself'!!!

That'd be like advising a whale to fly!!!!

It piques my interest that you didn't vet the original source (obviously, because the quote wasn't where it was cited), got lucky enough that it existed, and now are obfuscating. Steven R call you out on a mis-cite, you aren't owning up to it because you're dishonest intellectually. You know that already, though.

You're not smart, you just try to play one on the internet.

Nonsense.
Telling that you fail to mention the significance of the quote.



The quote was both accurate and proved Darwinism fatally flawed.


Can't wait for your book to come out, "How I Got Through Life Knowing Absolutely Nothing."

No one is saying that Darwinism is without flaw, what we are trying to tell you is that that doesn't mean that evolution is false. We do not know all there is to know about evolution, just as we don't know all there is about the galaxy. But we know that there are galaxies and we know that living organisms evolve.

 

[PredFan]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

There is zero evidence that animals have ever evolved from one species into an entirely new ( or 2) species.

The only evidence for evolution is WITHIN a species.

That is incorrect, but even if it was correct, it doesn't disprove evolution so what is the point?

 

[PredFan]

"....when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited...."

You found no such thing.

It exists exactly as quoted.

No, it doesn't. I even posted a link to multiple versions of accessing Vol. 86 of Natural History, as scans, as PDF, as text. Pages 12-16 of Vol. 86 does not include the text you say it does. If it exists, it isn't where you said it is (or where you cut and pasted said it would be).

Now, either your source is wrong because they are sloppy or your source is wrong because they deliberately made up the citation. Which is it? And if your source can't even get a simple citation correct what makes you think anything else you parrot would be correct?

Here is an actual 'charade'.....you pretend the quotation doesn't exist....

...but it does.

See if you can connect these two 'dots.'

1. . "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


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

2. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. 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.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."



And you say????

PC, those two quotes don't do what you claim they do. You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution? That should give you a hint.

 

[PredFan]

There is zero evidence that animals have ever evolved from one species into an entirely new ( or 2) species.

The only evidence for evolution is WITHIN a species.

That's False, Of Course.
The Fossil Record not only includes Intermediate species, (and predictable/predictED ones for the Reason OF evolution) but contain the fossils In chronological Sequence.
IOW, we didn't jump from amoebas to primates overnight and more complex/evolved species are predictably, found in Later Strata.
Then of course there's DNA regression analysis and a myriad of other things including Vestiges of what were once tail bones on .. Us.

"Theory", in Scientific usage is a Well established set of facts, not mere conjecture. Gravity is a Theory, there's Atomic Theory, The Theory of Relativity, etc.

Evolution has plenty or EVIDENCE, including every new science that has emerged over time. Carbon/Isotopic Dating, DNA regression analysis, etc.; all Serve to Confirm it.
'God/S' has/have NO Evidence.
'God/S' does not rise to 'Theory' in the scientific sense. 'God/S' is/are Myth/Superstition/Faith.

Partisan Hack Creationists don't understand ANY of the Theories, but object to one because it contradicts their creation MYTH.
-

Nonsense.

And this is a total falsehood:
"The Fossil Record not only includes Intermediate species, (and predictable/predictED ones for the Reason OF evolution) but contain the fossils In chronological Sequence."


1. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


2. "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.


What is it with you guys....this fear of the truth.



BTW....in the Field paper in 'Science,' the abstract includes "Representatives of 22 classes in 10 animal phyla were used to infer phylogenetic relationships,...."


The lack of actual evidence, which you incorrectly suggested exists, always requires terms such as "infer."
Your post proves same.



And gravity vs evolution?

"Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution."
Berlinski



Now....you're not going to get mad just because I insulted your secular religion....are you?

Well PC, you and I agree on a great many things but you are way off base here. I wish you would listen to my advice, I don't know where you get your info or what is driving you on this but you build strawman arguments, take quotes out if context, and have little understanding if the meaning of what you do quote.

Your post above is a fine example. Anyway, see you in another thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, it doesn't. I even posted a link to multiple versions of accessing Vol. 86 of Natural History, as scans, as PDF, as text. Pages 12-16 of Vol. 86 does not include the text you say it does. If it exists, it isn't where you said it is (or where you cut and pasted said it would be).

Now, either your source is wrong because they are sloppy or your source is wrong because they deliberately made up the citation. Which is it? And if your source can't even get a simple citation correct what makes you think anything else you parrot would be correct?

Here is an actual 'charade'.....you pretend the quotation doesn't exist....

...but it does.

See if you can connect these two 'dots.'

1. . "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


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

2. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. 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.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."



And you say????

PC, those two quotes don't do what you claim they do. You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution? That should give you a hint.

"PC, those two quotes don't do what you claim they do."
Really?
How about you explain how they relate to Darwin's theory.

They prove exactly what I've been posting.



"....Gould is an avid proponent if evolution..."
And that is exactly why Gould is a salient witness.
That should give you a hint.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's False, Of Course.
The Fossil Record not only includes Intermediate species, (and predictable/predictED ones for the Reason OF evolution) but contain the fossils In chronological Sequence.
IOW, we didn't jump from amoebas to primates overnight and more complex/evolved species are predictably, found in Later Strata.
Then of course there's DNA regression analysis and a myriad of other things including Vestiges of what were once tail bones on .. Us.

"Theory", in Scientific usage is a Well established set of facts, not mere conjecture. Gravity is a Theory, there's Atomic Theory, The Theory of Relativity, etc.

Evolution has plenty or EVIDENCE, including every new science that has emerged over time. Carbon/Isotopic Dating, DNA regression analysis, etc.; all Serve to Confirm it.
'God/S' has/have NO Evidence.
'God/S' does not rise to 'Theory' in the scientific sense. 'God/S' is/are Myth/Superstition/Faith.

Partisan Hack Creationists don't understand ANY of the Theories, but object to one because it contradicts their creation MYTH.
-

Nonsense.

And this is a total falsehood:
"The Fossil Record not only includes Intermediate species, (and predictable/predictED ones for the Reason OF evolution) but contain the fossils In chronological Sequence."


1. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


2. "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.


What is it with you guys....this fear of the truth.



BTW....in the Field paper in 'Science,' the abstract includes "Representatives of 22 classes in 10 animal phyla were used to infer phylogenetic relationships,...."


The lack of actual evidence, which you incorrectly suggested exists, always requires terms such as "infer."
Your post proves same.



And gravity vs evolution?

"Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution."
Berlinski



Now....you're not going to get mad just because I insulted your secular religion....are you?

Well PC, you and I agree on a great many things but you are way off base here. I wish you would listen to my advice, I don't know where you get your info or what is driving you on this but you build strawman arguments, take quotes out if context, and have little understanding if the meaning of what you do quote.

Your post above is a fine example. Anyway, see you in another thread.

Then is should be easy for you to show any of my posts to be false.

None have yet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

There is zero evidence that animals have ever evolved from one species into an entirely new ( or 2) species.

The only evidence for evolution is WITHIN a species.

That is incorrect, but even if it was correct, it doesn't disprove evolution so what is the point?

Be precise.

It certainly removes any cachet from Darwin's theory.

If that is what you mean by 'evolution,' you have been misled.

 

[G.T.]

"Natural History, 86:12-16"

Was false. The quote wasn't there, it was somewhere else.

 

[orogenicman]

Never mind that Gould studied this his entire life and believed in evolution (which, as a sidebar - - - is not something you "believe in," it's something you "know), no, never mind that.

We have an internetz poster who is not 1/ 1,000th as qualified to speak on the subject thinking that a cherry-picked Gould quote destroys evolution!



Good one! You're a genius! Don't let them tell you different!

Just proving that you Darwin-as-religion folks can't deal with things like this:

1. . "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

Let's put that quote into context, shall we?

The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and by none more forcibly than by Professor 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 all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long ages before their modified descendants. But we continually over-rate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of
the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations,—longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals
will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created.

So when you put the quote in its proper context, it doesn't mean at all what she is trying to lead people to believe it means. In context, it is clear that Darwin understands the notion of both the geologic facies and the discontinuity. Furthermore, he readily admitted that the then current extent of the known fossil record was limited by what fossils they had collected from the European subcontinent and North America, with small samplings collected from elsewhere.

Darlin, we have collected specimens, to date, from all corners of the global, and from tens of thousands of feet below it. So our collections are vastly superior to what was available to Charles Darwin.

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. 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.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

This is the title from a chapter from Gould's essay "The Panda's Thumb"

Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"

Snipped in the ellipsis is:


"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Following this passage is:


"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.

Let's be clear. Gould subscribed to the theory of evolution, and was not trying to refute it at all. He even commented once (whose comments I posted in another of these ragged threads) on his surprise that creationists would try to use what he wrote to make it look as if her was trying to do just that. He believed their efforts to be dishonest, and they are.