Of Hamlet, Monkeys and Infinity

[Asclepias]

"... instead deigning to believe the writings of men many centuries removed from any proximity to true knowledge."


Wallace and Darwin's exposition: 1859.


Over a century and a half......still no proof.


Dunce.



Where did you find me relying on the bible?

DNA disagrees with you that there is no proof of evolution. Thats how scientists figured out life evolved in Africa. Calling me a dunce only reveals your anger and emotional trauma. That and your lack of a competing theory render your argument impotent. Please educate yourself about evolution if you are going to try and disprove it.

1. I need no competing theory. I simply mean to highlight the inability of you Darwin groupies.


2. OK...I take back 'dunce.' You're a moron.

So you admit your only objective is discredit Darwin groupies? Do you see what I mean about your ability to handle logic? My advise to you is to read up on DNA and its proof of evolution. You also need to understand how to present an argument or people are just going to laugh at you like I am doing now.

 

[rightwinger]

I appreciate the fear you have of actually addressing the substance of my posts.
You have lied, denying that you read them, and then sunk to the Alinsky attempt to marginalize the author...as above....

One would tend to believe that I must be 100% correct, based on your desire to dispense with the import of my posts, but your inability to do so.

I hope that is clear, as I always have the highest respect for our senior citizens.

My Political Chic/Monkey theorem is based on a simple theorem

Can a monkey be taught to cut and paste?

I figure if you give a monkey positive reinforcement (like a banana) you could teach him to cut and paste

Is that how you learned?

So....where have you addressed the OP?
I understand.....with you superannuated folks of....advanced age.....perseveration tends to be a problem.
I'll bet that wrinkled was not one of the things you wanted to be when you were growing up.

The larger question at hand might be

Is it possible to distinquish a thread generated by Political Chic from one generated by a monkey?

My only logical conclusion would be ...Yes

The monkey's thread would be more understandable

 

[alang1216]

Excellent!

A valiant attempt to answer the question of our time.

Wrong, but an attempt.

"There is a war going on in this country between science and ignorance."

Upon close inspection, it is revealed as no more than a self-serving restatement of the demand that Darwin's philosophizing be bowed to.

Clearly, I am not ignorant, nor are the multitudes who deny that evolution as stated is any more than a guess, a conjecture, a theory.

Now...to place "ignorance" where it belongs....in your resume,...you actually post a sentence that defeats itself:

"There is no scientific dispute about that and Darwin's mechanism is the best we have to explain it."

"...no dispute....the best we have...."

Stunning in its stupidity.

I suggest you dig deeper in search for the answer to the question.

Hint: you need incorporate far more than science in the search.

It is clear to me you are ignorant about this particular topic. There is an enormous difference between common decent and natural selection that you fail to appreciate. If you wish to discuss science you should understand it first. It is obvious which side you've chosen in the war.

"It is clear to me you are ignorant about this particular topic."

A lie.

What is clear, though, is that you are upset that there are those of us who choose to think for ourselves, rather than fall in line.

Not a lie, a personal observation. You should learn the difference.

If I were upset it would be because I don't think you have come to your skepticism of science from thinking for yourself but from only listening to others.

If you're not ignorant as you claim please tell us all if you accept common descent as fact and why. I'll even get you started: Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is clear to me you are ignorant about this particular topic. There is an enormous difference between common decent and natural selection that you fail to appreciate. If you wish to discuss science you should understand it first. It is obvious which side you've chosen in the war.

"It is clear to me you are ignorant about this particular topic."

A lie.

What is clear, though, is that you are upset that there are those of us who choose to think for ourselves, rather than fall in line.

Not a lie, a personal observation. You should learn the difference.

If I were upset it would be because I don't think you have come to your skepticism of science from thinking for yourself but from only listening to others.

If you're not ignorant as you claim please tell us all if you accept common descent as fact and why. I'll even get you started: Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK....now, I'll have to embarrass you, and reveal how truly ignorant you are.


Take notes, so you don't post anything as stupid again:


1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.



2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."




3. In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.



4. The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion.
Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit.
The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." http://www.sciencemag.org/content/241/4863/291.extract



Get it, moron?

Darwin had it backwards.....as do you.



Your time would be far better spent in trying to address the question I posed earlier.

Unfortunately, you have not the breadth of knowledge required to accomplish said task.

 

[alang1216]

"It is clear to me you are ignorant about this particular topic."

A lie.

What is clear, though, is that you are upset that there are those of us who choose to think for ourselves, rather than fall in line.

Not a lie, a personal observation. You should learn the difference.

If I were upset it would be because I don't think you have come to your skepticism of science from thinking for yourself but from only listening to others.

If you're not ignorant as you claim please tell us all if you accept common descent as fact and why. I'll even get you started: Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK....now, I'll have to embarrass you, and reveal how truly ignorant you are.

Take notes, so you don't post anything as stupid again:

1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.

2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."

3. In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

4. The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion.
Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit.
The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution

Get it, moron?

Darwin had it backwards.....as do you.

Your time would be far better spent in trying to address the question I posed earlier.

Unfortunately, you have not the breadth of knowledge required to accomplish said task.

A fine job of cutting and pasting but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself. That is OK, but some attribution of the material would have been nice. Is it cut from a peer-reviewed journal or some non-science, anti-evolution, Christian website? Do the authors of the article you did link reject common descent and evolution or were they trying to refine the process?

Unfortunately you haven't really addressed common descent. Is your position that the fossil record is so good that we can assume we're seeing everything of interest from the past? Did the Cambrian explosion take place only when and where the Burgess Shale accumulated?

Whatever the process of evolution, the fact of common descent is everywhere apparent and is not doubted by the science community. It is questioned almost exclusively by non-scientists, ignorant of the centuries that went into it's development.

 

[Asclepias]

Evolution, hop scotch, and hide and seek may as well be Ergodic theory to politicalchick. She has no grasp of the facts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not a lie, a personal observation. You should learn the difference.

If I were upset it would be because I don't think you have come to your skepticism of science from thinking for yourself but from only listening to others.

If you're not ignorant as you claim please tell us all if you accept common descent as fact and why. I'll even get you started: Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK....now, I'll have to embarrass you, and reveal how truly ignorant you are.

Take notes, so you don't post anything as stupid again:

1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.

2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."

3. In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

4. The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion.
Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit.
The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution

Get it, moron?

Darwin had it backwards.....as do you.

Your time would be far better spent in trying to address the question I posed earlier.

Unfortunately, you have not the breadth of knowledge required to accomplish said task.

A fine job of cutting and pasting but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself. That is OK, but some attribution of the material would have been nice. Is it cut from a peer-reviewed journal or some non-science, anti-evolution, Christian website? Do the authors of the article you did link reject common descent and evolution or were they trying to refine the process?

Unfortunately you haven't really addressed common descent. Is your position that the fossil record is so good that we can assume we're seeing everything of interest from the past? Did the Cambrian explosion take place only when and where the Burgess Shale accumulated?

Whatever the process of evolution, the fact of common descent is everywhere apparent and is not doubted by the science community. It is questioned almost exclusively by non-scientists, ignorant of the centuries that went into it's development.

I just proved that evidence shows Darwinism is a fraud....and some moron posts "but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself."

Oh...that moron was you.


"... is not doubted by the science community."
What do you suppose Science represents.



Obviously science is not the only area in which you remain staunchly ignorant.

 

[Asclepias]

OK....now, I'll have to embarrass you, and reveal how truly ignorant you are.

Take notes, so you don't post anything as stupid again:

1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.

2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."

3. In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

4. The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion.
Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit.
The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution

Get it, moron?

Darwin had it backwards.....as do you.

Your time would be far better spent in trying to address the question I posed earlier.

Unfortunately, you have not the breadth of knowledge required to accomplish said task.

A fine job of cutting and pasting but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself. That is OK, but some attribution of the material would have been nice. Is it cut from a peer-reviewed journal or some non-science, anti-evolution, Christian website? Do the authors of the article you did link reject common descent and evolution or were they trying to refine the process?

Unfortunately you haven't really addressed common descent. Is your position that the fossil record is so good that we can assume we're seeing everything of interest from the past? Did the Cambrian explosion take place only when and where the Burgess Shale accumulated?

Whatever the process of evolution, the fact of common descent is everywhere apparent and is not doubted by the science community. It is questioned almost exclusively by non-scientists, ignorant of the centuries that went into it's development.

I just proved that evidence shows Darwinism is a fraud....and some moron posts "but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself."

Oh...that moron was you.


"... is not doubted by the science community."
What do you suppose Science represents.



Obviously science is not the only area in which you remain staunchly ignorant.

No. You only proved that you are willfully ignorant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A fine job of cutting and pasting but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself. That is OK, but some attribution of the material would have been nice. Is it cut from a peer-reviewed journal or some non-science, anti-evolution, Christian website? Do the authors of the article you did link reject common descent and evolution or were they trying to refine the process?

Unfortunately you haven't really addressed common descent. Is your position that the fossil record is so good that we can assume we're seeing everything of interest from the past? Did the Cambrian explosion take place only when and where the Burgess Shale accumulated?

Whatever the process of evolution, the fact of common descent is everywhere apparent and is not doubted by the science community. It is questioned almost exclusively by non-scientists, ignorant of the centuries that went into it's development.

I just proved that evidence shows Darwinism is a fraud....and some moron posts "but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself."

Oh...that moron was you.


"... is not doubted by the science community."
What do you suppose Science represents.



Obviously science is not the only area in which you remain staunchly ignorant.

No. You only proved that you are willfully ignorant.

Moron was far too kind.

Imbecile.

 

[Asclepias]

I just proved that evidence shows Darwinism is a fraud....and some moron posts "but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself."

Oh...that moron was you.


"... is not doubted by the science community."
What do you suppose Science represents.



Obviously science is not the only area in which you remain staunchly ignorant.

No. You only proved that you are willfully ignorant.

Moron was far too kind.

Imbecile.

Dont be emotional. Please explain why DNA is not proof of evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No. You only proved that you are willfully ignorant.

Moron was far too kind.

Imbecile.

Dont be emotional. Please explain why DNA is not proof of evolution.

Emotional?

By providing linked/sourced material?

I’ve seen people like you before…but then I had to pay admission.
You are a special kind of imbecile...one who lies and pretends not to see the truth.


DNA....bogus.


The Cambrian explosion destroys the notion.

The reason for the name 'explosion' is that during a short geological period at least 16 completely novel phyla and bout thirty classes first appeared in the fossil record.
Novel meaning new organs and body arrangements.

New DNA....in too short a timeframe.

Possibly you might try to learn the subject before you embarrass yourself in this manner again.

Then again....you really have no reputation to lose.

This is an excellent time for you to become a missing person.

 

[Asclepias]

Moron was far too kind.

Imbecile.

Dont be emotional. Please explain why DNA is not proof of evolution.

Emotional?

By providing linked/sourced material?

I’ve seen people like you before…but then I had to pay admission.
You are a special kind of imbecile...one who lies and pretends not to see the truth.


DNA....bogus.


The Cambrian explosion destroys the notion.

The reason for the name 'explosion' is that during a short geological period at least 16 completely novel phyla and bout thirty classes first appeared in the fossil record.
Novel meaning new organs and body arrangements.

New DNA....in too short a timeframe.

Possibly you might try to learn the subject before you embarrass yourself in this manner again.

Then again....you really have no reputation to lose.

This is an excellent time for you to become a missing person.

Emotional as in calling someone names like a petulant child does. Control yourself and present facts. I didnt read anything after you said DNA was bogus. Its clear someone has brainwashed you into believing that a science that is used to ID criminals and parents of children is bogus. I feel for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dont be emotional. Please explain why DNA is not proof of evolution.

Emotional?

By providing linked/sourced material?

I’ve seen people like you before…but then I had to pay admission.
You are a special kind of imbecile...one who lies and pretends not to see the truth.


DNA....bogus.


The Cambrian explosion destroys the notion.

The reason for the name 'explosion' is that during a short geological period at least 16 completely novel phyla and bout thirty classes first appeared in the fossil record.
Novel meaning new organs and body arrangements.

New DNA....in too short a timeframe.

Possibly you might try to learn the subject before you embarrass yourself in this manner again.

Then again....you really have no reputation to lose.

This is an excellent time for you to become a missing person.

Emotional as in calling someone names like a petulant child does. Control yourself and present facts. I didnt read anything after you said DNA was bogus. Its clear someone has brainwashed you into believing that a science that is used to ID criminals and parents of children is bogus. I feel for you.

"I didnt read anything blah blah blah....."
The emblem of the Liberal: abject fear of education.



I have no intention of pulling my punches.

Perhaps in government schools you have become accustomed to being patted on the head no matter how stupid, untrue, or insane your pronouncements.

That will not be the case here.


The beatings will continue until enlightenment emerges.

You may be assured of it.

 

[Asclepias]

Emotional?

By providing linked/sourced material?

I’ve seen people like you before…but then I had to pay admission.
You are a special kind of imbecile...one who lies and pretends not to see the truth.


DNA....bogus.


The Cambrian explosion destroys the notion.

The reason for the name 'explosion' is that during a short geological period at least 16 completely novel phyla and bout thirty classes first appeared in the fossil record.
Novel meaning new organs and body arrangements.

New DNA....in too short a timeframe.

Possibly you might try to learn the subject before you embarrass yourself in this manner again.

Then again....you really have no reputation to lose.

This is an excellent time for you to become a missing person.

Emotional as in calling someone names like a petulant child does. Control yourself and present facts. I didnt read anything after you said DNA was bogus. Its clear someone has brainwashed you into believing that a science that is used to ID criminals and parents of children is bogus. I feel for you.

"I didnt read anything blah blah blah....."
The emblem of the Liberal: abject fear of education.



I have no intention of pulling my punches.

Perhaps in government schools you have become accustomed to being patted on the head no matter how stupid, untrue, or insane your pronouncements.

That will not be the case here.


The beatings will continue until enlightenment emerges.

You may be assured of it.

You do realize you are on a message board correct? Just checking.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Emotional as in calling someone names like a petulant child does. Control yourself and present facts. I didnt read anything after you said DNA was bogus. Its clear someone has brainwashed you into believing that a science that is used to ID criminals and parents of children is bogus. I feel for you.

"I didnt read anything blah blah blah....."
The emblem of the Liberal: abject fear of education.



I have no intention of pulling my punches.

Perhaps in government schools you have become accustomed to being patted on the head no matter how stupid, untrue, or insane your pronouncements.

That will not be the case here.


The beatings will continue until enlightenment emerges.

You may be assured of it.

You do realize you are on a message board correct? Just checking.

You do realize you are a moron, correct? Just checking.

 

[Dante]

Poor Polichiclet, she fails to understand how some theories even evolve as more science is learned.

 

[alang1216]

OK....now, I'll have to embarrass you, and reveal how truly ignorant you are.

Take notes, so you don't post anything as stupid again:

1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.

2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."

3. In "Origin," Darwin provided his famous tree diagram, which illustrated his idea of universal common descent, with higher taxa emerging from lower ones via the accumulation of slight variations. "The diagram illustrates the steps by which small differences distinguishing varieties are increased into larger differences distinguishing species.."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.120.

In short, diversity would precede disparity ( 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.)

But the actual pattern in the fossil record contradicts this prediction. In actuality, the fossil record shows representatives of separate phyla appearing first followed by lower-level diversification.

4. The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion.
Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit.
The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution

Get it, moron?

Darwin had it backwards.....as do you.

Your time would be far better spent in trying to address the question I posed earlier.

Unfortunately, you have not the breadth of knowledge required to accomplish said task.

A fine job of cutting and pasting but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself. That is OK, but some attribution of the material would have been nice. Is it cut from a peer-reviewed journal or some non-science, anti-evolution, Christian website? Do the authors of the article you did link reject common descent and evolution or were they trying to refine the process?

Unfortunately you haven't really addressed common descent. Is your position that the fossil record is so good that we can assume we're seeing everything of interest from the past? Did the Cambrian explosion take place only when and where the Burgess Shale accumulated?

Whatever the process of evolution, the fact of common descent is everywhere apparent and is not doubted by the science community. It is questioned almost exclusively by non-scientists, ignorant of the centuries that went into it's development.

I just proved that evidence shows Darwinism is a fraud....and some moron posts "but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself."

Oh...that moron was you.

"... is not doubted by the science community."
What do you suppose Science represents.

Obviously science is not the only area in which you remain staunchly ignorant.

I'm sorry but cutting and pasting from an ID website proves nothing, certainly not that common descent is doubted by the scientific community. The mechanisms of evolution are debated but the fact of common descent is not.

Here's my cut and paste review of the Meyers mentioned in your post:

Scientific readers will likely find that “Darwin’s Doubt” has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of years—far more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.

It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Panda’s Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the field’s key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of “Darwin’s Doubt” that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyer’s, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. “All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms…[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once,” Matzke writes.

That must prove my point, after all it did come from the internet.

You claim there was not enough time in the Cambrian for evolution to take place. OK, how much time was needed? Do you even have a clue?

 

[Dante]

...

...

I'm sorry but cutting and pasting from an ID website proves nothing...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poor Polichiclet, she fails to understand how some theories even evolve as more science is learned.

So, waiting 155 years for verification is acceptable to you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

A fine job of cutting and pasting but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself. That is OK, but some attribution of the material would have been nice. Is it cut from a peer-reviewed journal or some non-science, anti-evolution, Christian website? Do the authors of the article you did link reject common descent and evolution or were they trying to refine the process?

Unfortunately you haven't really addressed common descent. Is your position that the fossil record is so good that we can assume we're seeing everything of interest from the past? Did the Cambrian explosion take place only when and where the Burgess Shale accumulated?

Whatever the process of evolution, the fact of common descent is everywhere apparent and is not doubted by the science community. It is questioned almost exclusively by non-scientists, ignorant of the centuries that went into it's development.

I just proved that evidence shows Darwinism is a fraud....and some moron posts "but doesn't really show you thinking for yourself."

Oh...that moron was you.

"... is not doubted by the science community."
What do you suppose Science represents.

Obviously science is not the only area in which you remain staunchly ignorant.

I'm sorry but cutting and pasting from an ID website proves nothing, certainly not that common descent is doubted by the scientific community. The mechanisms of evolution are debated but the fact of common descent is not.

Here's my cut and paste review of the Meyers mentioned in your post:

Scientific readers will likely find that “Darwin’s Doubt” has an inspired-by-true-events feel: a few elements are recognizable, but the story makes no sense to anyone who was there. The problem for Meyer is that what has come to be called the Cambrian explosion was not, in fact, an explosion. It took place over tens of millions of years—far more time than, for example, it took humans and chimpanzees to go their separate ways. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, combined with new computer-aided analytical techniques, have given scientists a far more complete portrait of the tree of life than Darwin and Walcott had available, making connections between species that they could not see.

It turns out that many of the major gaps that Meyer identifies are the result of his misleading rearrangement of the tree. Nick Matzke, a scientist who blogs at Panda’s Thumb, makes a convincing case that Meyer does not understand the field’s key statistical techniques (among other things). For example, Meyer presents a chart on page thirty-five of “Darwin’s Doubt” that appears to show the sudden appearance of large numbers of major animal groups in the Cambrian: the smoking gun. But if one looks at a family tree based on current science, it looks nothing like Meyer’s, and precisely like what Darwinian theory would predict. “All of this is pretty good evidence for the basic idea that the Cambrian ‘Explosion’ is really the radiation of simple bilaterian worms into more complex worms…[which] occurred in many stages, instead of all at once,” Matzke writes.

That must prove my point, after all it did come from the internet.

You claim there was not enough time in the Cambrian for evolution to take place. OK, how much time was needed? Do you even have a clue?

Didn't the phase "the field’s key statistical techniques " give you a clue that you are being snookered?

Well....perhaps you're not that bright.

No shock there.....the material that I provided, from several sources, is accurate and correct.

Darwin is not.

But....you may continue to genuflect to him just the same.