Marx, Math And Myth

OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,036
Reaction score
33,900
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?
Duh, duh, duh. You just do not learn. Natural selection.
Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.
Wrong.
You too?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

You said he 'discovered' natural selection.

You are as wrong as always.....it was recognized for four thousand years of breeding.

. In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor




But.....on the bright side.....no one expects you to know anything.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
"When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement."

I realize you get your science from old Westerns but this one time you're right. What you should mention though is that if a mutation save the life of one bacteria in billion, that is the trait that will be passed on to the next generation.

The diversity of life is a fact. Darwin provided a mechanism for life to achieve that diversity that fits the evidence. No other theory even comes close.
I like Westerns because the people enforce the laws with guns and bullies and scofflaws are put in their place most of the time.

You continue to believe in Darwinism when there is none. It's only natural selection and if we didn't have the Darwin tangent, then we probably would be better off for it. Natural selection is the gun which puts bullies and scofflaws in their place most of the time.
.
You should find yourself a western that explains Darwinism

Anyone, even you, can explain Darwin's theory.

No one can prove it.
can you prove ANY other theory? creationism? god? Trump is not guilty of sexual assault?
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,036
Reaction score
33,900
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
"When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement."

I realize you get your science from old Westerns but this one time you're right. What you should mention though is that if a mutation save the life of one bacteria in billion, that is the trait that will be passed on to the next generation.

The diversity of life is a fact. Darwin provided a mechanism for life to achieve that diversity that fits the evidence. No other theory even comes close.
I like Westerns because the people enforce the laws with guns and bullies and scofflaws are put in their place most of the time.

You continue to believe in Darwinism when there is none. It's only natural selection and if we didn't have the Darwin tangent, then we probably would be better off for it. Natural selection is the gun which puts bullies and scofflaws in their place most of the time.
.
You should find yourself a western that explains Darwinism

Anyone, even you, can explain Darwin's theory.

No one can prove it.
can you prove ANY other theory? creationism? god? Trump is not guilty of sexual assault?

Why would I?

The argument you just lost was my aim....mission accomplished.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?
Duh, duh, duh. You just do not learn. Natural selection.
Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.
Wrong.
You too?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

You said he 'discovered' natural selection.

You are as wrong as always.....it was recognized for four thousand years of breeding.

. In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor




But.....on the bright side.....no one expects you to know anything.
First 'breeding' is not natural. Darwin discovered natural selection like Columbus discovered America. Both always existed but were not known to the West.

Darwin was not infallible, he got lots of stuff wrong. Apparently it was the same with Agassiz.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,036
Reaction score
33,900
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?
Duh, duh, duh. You just do not learn. Natural selection.
Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.
Wrong.
You too?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

You said he 'discovered' natural selection.

You are as wrong as always.....it was recognized for four thousand years of breeding.

. In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor




But.....on the bright side.....no one expects you to know anything.
First 'breeding' is not natural. Darwin discovered natural selection like Columbus discovered America. Both always existed but were not known to the West.

Darwin was not infallible, he got lots of stuff wrong. Apparently it was the same with Agassiz.

"First 'breeding' is not natural."


For the sake of humanity, we can only hope that you have taken that personally.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?
Duh, duh, duh. You just do not learn. Natural selection.
Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.
Wrong.
You too?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

You said he 'discovered' natural selection.

You are as wrong as always.....it was recognized for four thousand years of breeding.

. In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor




But.....on the bright side.....no one expects you to know anything.
First 'breeding' is not natural. Darwin discovered natural selection like Columbus discovered America. Both always existed but were not known to the West.

Darwin was not infallible, he got lots of stuff wrong. Apparently it was the same with Agassiz.

"First 'breeding' is not natural."


For the sake of humanity, we can only hope that you have taken that personally.
I do take pleasure in watching you twist in the wind. It's one of my weaknesses I'm afraid.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
100,036
Reaction score
33,900
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?
Duh, duh, duh. You just do not learn. Natural selection.
Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.
Wrong.
You too?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

You said he 'discovered' natural selection.

You are as wrong as always.....it was recognized for four thousand years of breeding.

. In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor




But.....on the bright side.....no one expects you to know anything.
First 'breeding' is not natural. Darwin discovered natural selection like Columbus discovered America. Both always existed but were not known to the West.

Darwin was not infallible, he got lots of stuff wrong. Apparently it was the same with Agassiz.

"First 'breeding' is not natural."


For the sake of humanity, we can only hope that you have taken that personally.
I do take pleasure in watching you twist in the wind. It's one of my weaknesses I'm afraid.

And one more dunce proving my rule #1:

Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
You should find yourself a western that explains Darwinism
:lol:. Now, that's pretty clever. It would have to be a science fiction Western. How about Westworld?

I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?
This goes back to how Darwin explained ToE. Darwin did not create ToE, but was able to explain it. You couldn't answer my question, so the answer is Darwin added long time, descent with modification, common ancestor, and the tree of life to natural selection. This backs up my evaluation that you don't know what you are talking about. In fact, we argued about long time. You couldn't even come up with that.

Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.
I complimented you for your western quip, but now you're just flat out wrong. No wonder you attribute to me what Darwinism claimed. This is the whole crux of the disproving Ronald Fisher's theorem on Mathematical Biology. Natural selection was what was first observed by both Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. We would've came up with it eventually if we lived in that time and somehow had an internet forum like this. However, with different conclusions. You have to remember that before that was a battle between the accepted science of creation vs uniformitarianism or the rising science of atheism.

Again, you agreed that natural selection was:

The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce. This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.

Beneficial traits become more beneficial. Harmful traits become more scarce.

The above is based on observation. Can't we just use that to explain what came afterward in science, that of genetics?
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
can you prove ANY other theory? creationism? god? Trump is not guilty of sexual assault?
You got the proof against Fisher's theorem. The evidence for creationism is that we are here. We have Kalam's Cosmological argument and the best theory is God. Trump is innocent until proven guilty unlike there are plenty of photos of Biden, sexual assault, and pedophilia.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
First 'breeding' is not natural. Darwin discovered natural selection like Columbus discovered America. Both always existed but were not known to the West.

Darwin was not infallible, he got lots of stuff wrong. Apparently it was the same with Agassiz.
Sexual breeding didn't happen naturally. God created man and woman and commanded them to fill the world. Natural selection cannot explain sexual reproduction. Natural selection can only explain asymmetric reproduction. We see science and religion are two sides of the same coin.

Let's just eliminate Darwin. He was wrong about everything.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?
Duh, duh, duh. You just do not learn. Natural selection.
Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.
Wrong.
You too?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

You said he 'discovered' natural selection.

You are as wrong as always.....it was recognized for four thousand years of breeding.

. In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor




But.....on the bright side.....no one expects you to know anything.
It’s predictable that those limited by religionism would use references to people from 150 years ago.

Being scientifically illiterate, you wouldn’t have been aware that science has advanced a lot in the last 150 years.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
First 'breeding' is not natural. Darwin discovered natural selection like Columbus discovered America. Both always existed but were not known to the West.

Darwin was not infallible, he got lots of stuff wrong. Apparently it was the same with Agassiz.
Sexual breeding didn't happen naturally. God created man and woman and commanded them to fill the world. Natural selection cannot explain sexual reproduction. Natural selection can only explain asymmetric reproduction. We see science and religion are two sides of the same coin.

Let's just eliminate Darwin. He was wrong about everything.
Not surprisingly, your religious fundamentalism would cause you to reference super-magical gods as “creators” of man and woman. That’s nothing more than myth and legend.

On the other hand, principles related to biological systems established by Charles Darwin have been confirmed by methods consistent with the scientific method.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Beneficial traits become more beneficial. Harmful traits become more scarce.

The above is based on observation. Can't we just use that to explain what came afterward in science, that of genetics?
Yes we can and we do. It is called the Theory of Evolution.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.
Ho hum. Back to this again. You're the one desperately trying to bring creationists and IDers into the discussion, so you can post your wacky looney tunes website.

You have no evidence for abiogenesis while Dr. Louis Pasteur and his experiments show only life can create life.

Instead, let's get into your claims. Can you give us examples of the peptides forming? Tell us in your own words how the first peptide formed since it's hypothetical instead of actual observation.
You get infuriated when your ID’iot creationer rants are exposed as fraud. I should remind you that you are posting in a public forum and you should expect that posting ID’iot creationer propaganda will be challenged.

If you had ever studied biology, you would have learned that biological evolution does not address abiogenesis.

Your nonsense claim about Pasteur is a nonsense claim typical of the Harun Yahya / ICR groupies.

Claim CB000:


Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.
Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.
Response:

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
can you prove ANY other theory? creationism? god? Trump is not guilty of sexual assault?
You got the proof against Fisher's theorem. The evidence for creationism is that we are here. We have Kalam's Cosmological argument and the best theory is God. Trump is innocent until proven guilty unlike there are plenty of photos of Biden, sexual assault, and pedophilia.
The fact we are here in no way points to creationism or evolution. It could have been aliens.

Kalam's Cosmological argument only points to a creator, there is no link to the God of the Bible.

Has Biden been proven guilty of sexual assault, or pedophilia?
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,578
Reaction score
1,317
Points
245
Location
Virginia
First 'breeding' is not natural. Darwin discovered natural selection like Columbus discovered America. Both always existed but were not known to the West.

Darwin was not infallible, he got lots of stuff wrong. Apparently it was the same with Agassiz.
Sexual breeding didn't happen naturally. God created man and woman and commanded them to fill the world. Natural selection cannot explain sexual reproduction. Natural selection can only explain asymmetric reproduction. We see science and religion are two sides of the same coin.

Let's just eliminate Darwin. He was wrong about everything.
It was selective breeding I was talking about. Sorry, but the evolution of sexual reproduction was natural.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
It’s predictable that those limited by religionism would use references to people from 150 years ago.

Being scientifically illiterate, you wouldn’t have been aware that science has advanced a lot in the last 150 years.
We discussed the last 150 years with James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin in the past. Today, it has been Basener and Sanford disproving Ronald Fisher's theorem with their paper on "Fundamental Theoren of Natural Selection with Mutations." They added mutations which is the fundamental component necessary for neo-Darwinism and genetics. Instead, you just kept repeating your tired mantra from the 1980s. I don't think you know enough to keep up with the OP nor the discussion I was making.

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.
Source:
You're the one who brought up peptides, but would not explain it in your own words.

OTOH, what Pasteur demonstrated still holds with spontaneous generation and it's neo-Darwinism counterpart of abiogenesis. Even alang1216 agreed that biogenesis happens.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,170
Reaction score
3,974
Points
1,130
It’s predictable that those limited by religionism would use references to people from 150 years ago.

Being scientifically illiterate, you wouldn’t have been aware that science has advanced a lot in the last 150 years.
We discussed the last 150 years with James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin in the past. Today, it has been Basener and Sanford disproving Ronald Fisher's theorem with their paper on "Fundamental Theoren of Natural Selection with Mutations." They added mutations which is the fundamental component necessary for neo-Darwinism and genetics. Instead, you just kept repeating your tired mantra from the 1980s. I don't think you know enough to keep up with the OP nor the discussion I was making.

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.
Source:
You're the one who brought up peptides, but would not explain it in your own words.

OTOH, what Pasteur demonstrated still holds with spontaneous generation and it's neo-Darwinism counterpart of abiogenesis. Even alang1216 agreed that biogenesis happens.
With your bias toward neo-religionism, you seem to have missed whatever point you were trying to make.

Your insistence on the nonsensical description of Pasteur's experiment per the Watchtower Bible and Tract Cult is yours alone,
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
8,552
Reaction score
882
Points
170
The fact we are here in no way points to creationism or evolution. It could have been aliens.

Kalam's Cosmological argument only points to a creator, there is no link to the God of the Bible.

Has Biden been proven guilty of sexual assault, or pedophilia?
In the near past, we already discussed the evidence that the Bible was discovered and that it was written by different peoples from different walks of life over the years. I also have said many times that Satan wrote the Antibible of evolution. All of the main books and articles in that were done by different atheist scientists over the past 170 years. Today, I discussed Ronald Fisher's contributions. In the past, I've discussed the contradictions in the Antibible contradict everything what the God of the Bible said. Thus, it is no coincidence that two are related. How else do you explain the perfect match? Thus, Kalam's Cosmological Argument is for the God of the Bible. Not Satan nor any other gods of another bible.

While I am tempted to post Biden's photo, I won't because that is for the Politics forum.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top