On Science, Human Nature, and the Nature of Science

[ZackB]

PC, what the **** is the point to all of this? You are a ditz. You take a relatively innocuous proposition, like that science has not yet explained everything and that it is not 100% reliable (for whatever reason), and wrap it up in all of your weird, conspiratorial bullshit, then market it as some sort of grand gift to humanity. This is a pattern with you, isn't it? You are seriously twisted.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think this is all true, maybe with the exception of the abortion comment. Charles Fort was like a genius. It must have been a huge and complex task to go through all those subject matters and review them in this light.

It was those "experts" who drew even the most obvious modern things such as the map of Europe. That is why we have e.g. a Czech Republic but no Moravia, a Ukraine but no Rutenia, had a Yugoslavia but no Dalmatia, and so on. I think their most spectacular work is the documents in Washington in which they argue why converting the dollar into a fiat is a good idea. Their argument is simply this, "... because it [supporting assets] is REALLY NOT necessary". If I write at school something like this then I would get an f. So yes, I agree that there is this power center called various "experts", and they capitalize on a key feature of human nature, programmability.

By the way, you can't disprove Darwin by saying you don't see his theory in action. We live in a mass extinction period, so new species are not likely. With that

1. BTW....I can disprove it in several ways, including the fact that he posited simple organisms that evolved into numerous more complex one.


2. If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see,if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.


4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.



a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.



b. ... December 4, 1995,Time Magazinepublished a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.



c.Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail: January 2013

I think those intermediary evolutionary stages get competed out, so you end up with no trace of them. For example, in the 1980's there were 20++ different computer architectures and formats on the desktop market. Now there is only the IBM PC format and architecture, and this will be the one going into history to provide enough specimens to fossilize. With that said, most of your points work only if we consider time, including geological time, a linear uninterrupted quantity. There is no proof to this assumption.

1. I included this:

"...preserved fossils of such excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."


2. And, there's this...

The import of the Burgess Shale: how to explain the sudden rise of such extensive diversity during the Cambrian? Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.

Ignoring evidence to the contrary is hardly science.

In fact, it is the very antithesis of science.

a. 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, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


3. ....the evidence of the Burgess Shale spotlights not just the increase in complexity....but the sudden quantum leap in complexity!

Its the fact of radical differences, novel body plans that do not arise from a gradual sequence of intermediates that requires the removal of Darwin's theory to the ash bin!


4. More evidence: Opabinia- 15 articulated body segments, 28 gills, 30 flipper-like swimming lobes, long trunk-like proboscis, intricate nervous system...and five separate eyes!

a. Stephen Gould actually tried to pretend that Opabinia came to exist....get this....by 'unusual evolutionary mechanisms.

"This was one of the primary reasons why Gould in his book on the Burgess Shale, Wonderful Life, considered that Early Cambrian life was much more diverse and "experimental" than any later set of animals and that the Cambrian explosion was a truly dramatic event, possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms." Opabinia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms."

Doesn't relate to Darwin...does it.

On both scientific and theological basis, I find no contradiction between evolutionary theories and God as creator. Politically however the contradiction is total. It is possible that the theory of evolution and its fossil artifacts are all a window to how God progresses creation, measured using geological time.

It appears a clarification is necessary here.
I thought I was precise....but perhaps not.
No one is claiming that there is not or is not evolution...

There are a number of theories of evolution. My posts always specify discrepancies with Darwin's thesis.

It is incorrect.

Yet, it is accepted as fact and law...you can see that in posts such as those of Rocks, earlier in the thread.

And....you put you finger on the reason when you say 'politically.'

Your posts specify nothing except your lack of logic. Darwin's theory, that of Natural Selection, still stands, and it is not a religious straight jacket, but a framework within which to develop our knowledge of how life came to be what it is today. The scientists of today have far more tools at their disposal, and and have made greate strides in explaining the development of life on this wonderful planet. Your all too simple and ignorant rants not only have no revelance, they are indications that you have little concept of reality.

 

[Searcher44]

Even Charles FOrt would say you are nuts...

I wonder how much enjoyment he would get out of gathering up a goodly collection of her posts and pouring over them, astutely selecting the best examples of her bizarre talent for reimagining history into I what I guess Richard Lewontin would also call " fantastical unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

Unfortunately for you, Lewontin was speaking specifically about the current state of science.
And, he was verifying exactly the point I made.

Leaves you looking like a dunce, doesn't it.

Dunce...hmph, I feel slighted that you resort to your Trumpish gradeschool level of retort in reply to my somewhat creative barb. Dunce and other synonymic equivalents are much below the standards of insult repartee I think that deserved.

That feeling of being slighted though is nothing compared to my surprise at your admiration for this fellow Lewontin, an avowed Marxist. You who has such a prolific oeuvre of rhetorical attacks on even the most moderate of liberals. Oh the fire and brimstone you have called down on liberal ideology for the slightest tilt towards the left and what you constantly decry as the evils of socialism. Yes, this acceptance of Lewontin's infusion of his socialist concepts into science and evolutionary biology....well let's just say I'm shocked, shocked I am.

Or should I be surprised? I seem to remember you using S. J. Gould to buttress your thoughts on evolution and attacking him for his. You might deserve your reputation for playing fast and loose with sources. Ahh...one more question. Why do you keep bringing up atheism when someone relates historical facts on the murderous past of religions, specifically and especially Christianity? Surely you can comprehend the difference between an individual's incitement to evil, usually rooted in some psychopathy whether he is or is not an atheist, and a Religious institution purportedly rooted in moral guidance from an omnipotent Supreme Being engaging in slaughter and genocide and justifying those acts by the supposed words of that very Deity? I suggest you find other lines of defence if you're so committed to justifying historical barbarism. That atheist dodge is a pathetic attempt at misdirection of guilt. You won't find any liberal atheists defending Hitler or Stalin the way you defend and minimize cultic evil.

Jesus, one more thing. Until you improve the state of your deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of evolution I wish you would cease with comments that imply a lack of transitional forms. The fossil record is replete with examples of transitional and intermediate species. You could easily educate yourself in these examples if you weren't so rigidly stubborn in holding onto your old fashioned regressive ideology. Ditto regarding the simplistic interpretation of the "Cambrian Explosion" you disseminate here, to everyone's mis-edification.

There, I think that's it. Carry on with your diabolical plan to rid the world of
liberalism, tho I fear it is doomed by your own intransigent estrangement from reality.

 

[Hollie]

Science is a statistical process. So, wouldn't scientific falsifications be just another dead end which every investigative development has naturally?

By defunding science, as usual to do in the 21st century, we simply delay the discovery process but can't change it.

So, science and technological advancement works as if it was independent of human nature and of human capabilities.

Don't be silly.


Let's try reality:


10. Let's start with what is taught as science....but move on to how it also related to political science....

Why is it mandated that schools treat Darwin's theory as sacrosanct when, in over a century and a half, no one has created, or even seen, a new species formed? After all....it's been a century and a half since Darwin posited his notion....and there are more scientists working in these times than in all the time before, combined......yet:

a. "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.

.b. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley,The New Evolutionary Timetable(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

Get it?
Politics disguised as science.




11. Now...move on to political 'experiments'...and how truth is handled in a similar manner:

a. How is it that fifty years of trying the same welfare policies, we have the same level of poverty?

b. "How are rules that apply equally to everyone discriminatory and racist?

c. How are rules that only apply to one group of people not discriminatory and racist?

d. Why is it okay to kill unborn children but wrong to kill convicted murderers?

e. How will punishing law-abiding people stop criminals from breaking the law?"

Here Are The Top 10 Questions To Ask A Liberal



f. How is it we select folks who have never run a businesss to set policy on taxation and regulation?


g. In America, political power resides in the people. Any judges who throw out the results of honest elections are no more than fascist dictators....yet we see such, regularly.



Charles Fort passed on in 1932...but left this essential lesson the rest of us: science should be judged as is every other endeavor, and not held up as miraculous.

"... there’s a tendency among bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and other members of the New Class to convince the people to hand over the major decisions of their lives to the “experts.”These experts aren’t all in the government, but they all collude with government to convince people that the experts have all the answers and that the people need to hand the reins over to them. They will tell us what to eat, what to drive,what to think.

It’s an approach that puts politics before economics. Because it is an attempt to politicize peoples’ lives.”
Nazis: Still Socialists, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review

I think this is all true, maybe with the exception of the abortion comment. Charles Fort was like a genius. It must have been a huge and complex task to go through all those subject matters and review them in this light.

It was those "experts" who drew even the most obvious modern things such as the map of Europe. That is why we have e.g. a Czech Republic but no Moravia, a Ukraine but no Rutenia, had a Yugoslavia but no Dalmatia, and so on. I think their most spectacular work is the documents in Washington in which they argue why converting the dollar into a fiat is a good idea. Their argument is simply this, "... because it [supporting assets] is REALLY NOT necessary". If I write at school something like this then I would get an f. So yes, I agree that there is this power center called various "experts", and they capitalize on a key feature of human nature, programmability.

By the way, you can't disprove Darwin by saying you don't see his theory in action. We live in a mass extinction period, so new species are not likely. With that

1. BTW....I can disprove it in several ways, including the fact that he posited simple organisms that evolved into numerous more complex one.


2. If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see,if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.


4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.



a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.



b. ... December 4, 1995,Time Magazinepublished a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.



c.Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail: January 2013

I think those intermediary evolutionary stages get competed out, so you end up with no trace of them. For example, in the 1980's there were 20++ different computer architectures and formats on the desktop market. Now there is only the IBM PC format and architecture, and this will be the one going into history to provide enough specimens to fossilize. With that said, most of your points work only if we consider time, including geological time, a linear uninterrupted quantity. There is no proof to this assumption.

1. I included this:

"...preserved fossils of such excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."


2. And, there's this...

The import of the Burgess Shale: how to explain the sudden rise of such extensive diversity during the Cambrian? Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.

Ignoring evidence to the contrary is hardly science.

In fact, it is the very antithesis of science.

a. 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, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


3. ....the evidence of the Burgess Shale spotlights not just the increase in complexity....but the sudden quantum leap in complexity!

Its the fact of radical differences, novel body plans that do not arise from a gradual sequence of intermediates that requires the removal of Darwin's theory to the ash bin!


4. More evidence: Opabinia- 15 articulated body segments, 28 gills, 30 flipper-like swimming lobes, long trunk-like proboscis, intricate nervous system...and five separate eyes!

a. Stephen Gould actually tried to pretend that Opabinia came to exist....get this....by 'unusual evolutionary mechanisms.

"This was one of the primary reasons why Gould in his book on the Burgess Shale, Wonderful Life, considered that Early Cambrian life was much more diverse and "experimental" than any later set of animals and that the Cambrian explosion was a truly dramatic event, possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms." Opabinia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms."

Doesn't relate to Darwin...does it.

Science is a statistical process. So, wouldn't scientific falsifications be just another dead end which every investigative development has naturally?

By defunding science, as usual to do in the 21st century, we simply delay the discovery process but can't change it.

So, science and technological advancement works as if it was independent of human nature and of human capabilities.

Don't be silly.


Let's try reality:


10. Let's start with what is taught as science....but move on to how it also related to political science....

Why is it mandated that schools treat Darwin's theory as sacrosanct when, in over a century and a half, no one has created, or even seen, a new species formed? After all....it's been a century and a half since Darwin posited his notion....and there are more scientists working in these times than in all the time before, combined......yet:

a. "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.

.b. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley,The New Evolutionary Timetable(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

Get it?
Politics disguised as science.




11. Now...move on to political 'experiments'...and how truth is handled in a similar manner:

a. How is it that fifty years of trying the same welfare policies, we have the same level of poverty?

b. "How are rules that apply equally to everyone discriminatory and racist?

c. How are rules that only apply to one group of people not discriminatory and racist?

d. Why is it okay to kill unborn children but wrong to kill convicted murderers?

e. How will punishing law-abiding people stop criminals from breaking the law?"

Here Are The Top 10 Questions To Ask A Liberal



f. How is it we select folks who have never run a businesss to set policy on taxation and regulation?


g. In America, political power resides in the people. Any judges who throw out the results of honest elections are no more than fascist dictators....yet we see such, regularly.



Charles Fort passed on in 1932...but left this essential lesson the rest of us: science should be judged as is every other endeavor, and not held up as miraculous.

"... there’s a tendency among bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and other members of the New Class to convince the people to hand over the major decisions of their lives to the “experts.”These experts aren’t all in the government, but they all collude with government to convince people that the experts have all the answers and that the people need to hand the reins over to them. They will tell us what to eat, what to drive,what to think.

It’s an approach that puts politics before economics. Because it is an attempt to politicize peoples’ lives.”
Nazis: Still Socialists, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review

I think this is all true, maybe with the exception of the abortion comment. Charles Fort was like a genius. It must have been a huge and complex task to go through all those subject matters and review them in this light.

It was those "experts" who drew even the most obvious modern things such as the map of Europe. That is why we have e.g. a Czech Republic but no Moravia, a Ukraine but no Rutenia, had a Yugoslavia but no Dalmatia, and so on. I think their most spectacular work is the documents in Washington in which they argue why converting the dollar into a fiat is a good idea. Their argument is simply this, "... because it [supporting assets] is REALLY NOT necessary". If I write at school something like this then I would get an f. So yes, I agree that there is this power center called various "experts", and they capitalize on a key feature of human nature, programmability.

By the way, you can't disprove Darwin by saying you don't see his theory in action. We live in a mass extinction period, so new species are not likely. With that

1. BTW....I can disprove it in several ways, including the fact that he posited simple organisms that evolved into numerous more complex one.


2. If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see,if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.


4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.



a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.



b. ... December 4, 1995,Time Magazinepublished a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.



c.Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail: January 2013

I think those intermediary evolutionary stages get competed out, so you end up with no trace of them. For example, in the 1980's there were 20++ different computer architectures and formats on the desktop market. Now there is only the IBM PC format and architecture, and this will be the one going into history to provide enough specimens to fossilize. With that said, most of your points work only if we consider time, including geological time, a linear uninterrupted quantity. There is no proof to this assumption.

1. I included this:

"...preserved fossils of such excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."


2. And, there's this...

The import of the Burgess Shale: how to explain the sudden rise of such extensive diversity during the Cambrian? Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.

Ignoring evidence to the contrary is hardly science.

In fact, it is the very antithesis of science.

a. 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, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


3. ....the evidence of the Burgess Shale spotlights not just the increase in complexity....but the sudden quantum leap in complexity!

Its the fact of radical differences, novel body plans that do not arise from a gradual sequence of intermediates that requires the removal of Darwin's theory to the ash bin!


4. More evidence: Opabinia- 15 articulated body segments, 28 gills, 30 flipper-like swimming lobes, long trunk-like proboscis, intricate nervous system...and five separate eyes!

a. Stephen Gould actually tried to pretend that Opabinia came to exist....get this....by 'unusual evolutionary mechanisms.

"This was one of the primary reasons why Gould in his book on the Burgess Shale, Wonderful Life, considered that Early Cambrian life was much more diverse and "experimental" than any later set of animals and that the Cambrian explosion was a truly dramatic event, possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms." Opabinia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms."

Doesn't relate to Darwin...does it.

Fraud Alert!


PC is up to her usual tactics of “quote mining” from the charlatans at the Disco’tute where she knowingly and fraudulently cuts and pastes lies and falsehoods prompted by Christian fundamentalist loons.


The edited, purged and falsified Stephen Gould “quote” she cut and pasted is one she has dumped into seven, (yes, seven) separate threads where each time she was shown to be a fraud.

She has debilitating pathology wherein she believes promoting a lie so often found on the more extremist religious fundamentalist websites will somehow transform the fraud into something other than a fraud.


Let's debunk PC’ s fraud for an eighth time now, shall we?


The edited, parsed and doctored “quote” that PC stole from her religious fundamentalist website was:

a. 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).



However, the full comment from Gould is quite different:


Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"


Quote #14

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] 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 I [sic] 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.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

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.

- John Wilkins

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. BTW....I can disprove it in several ways, including the fact that he posited simple organisms that evolved into numerous more complex one.


2. If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see,if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.


4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.



a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.



b. ... December 4, 1995,Time Magazinepublished a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.



c.Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail: January 2013

I think those intermediary evolutionary stages get competed out, so you end up with no trace of them. For example, in the 1980's there were 20++ different computer architectures and formats on the desktop market. Now there is only the IBM PC format and architecture, and this will be the one going into history to provide enough specimens to fossilize. With that said, most of your points work only if we consider time, including geological time, a linear uninterrupted quantity. There is no proof to this assumption.

1. I included this:

"...preserved fossils of such excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."


2. And, there's this...

The import of the Burgess Shale: how to explain the sudden rise of such extensive diversity during the Cambrian? Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.

Ignoring evidence to the contrary is hardly science.

In fact, it is the very antithesis of science.

a. 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, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


3. ....the evidence of the Burgess Shale spotlights not just the increase in complexity....but the sudden quantum leap in complexity!

Its the fact of radical differences, novel body plans that do not arise from a gradual sequence of intermediates that requires the removal of Darwin's theory to the ash bin!


4. More evidence: Opabinia- 15 articulated body segments, 28 gills, 30 flipper-like swimming lobes, long trunk-like proboscis, intricate nervous system...and five separate eyes!

a. Stephen Gould actually tried to pretend that Opabinia came to exist....get this....by 'unusual evolutionary mechanisms.

"This was one of the primary reasons why Gould in his book on the Burgess Shale, Wonderful Life, considered that Early Cambrian life was much more diverse and "experimental" than any later set of animals and that the Cambrian explosion was a truly dramatic event, possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms." Opabinia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms."

Doesn't relate to Darwin...does it.

On both scientific and theological basis, I find no contradiction between evolutionary theories and God as creator. Politically however the contradiction is total. It is possible that the theory of evolution and its fossil artifacts are all a window to how God progresses creation, measured using geological time.

It appears a clarification is necessary here.
I thought I was precise....but perhaps not.
No one is claiming that there is not or is not evolution...

There are a number of theories of evolution. My posts always specify discrepancies with Darwin's thesis.

It is incorrect.

Yet, it is accepted as fact and law...you can see that in posts such as those of Rocks, earlier in the thread.

And....you put you finger on the reason when you say 'politically.'

Your posts specify nothing except your lack of logic. Darwin's theory, that of Natural Selection, still stands, and it is not a religious straight jacket, but a framework within which to develop our knowledge of how life came to be what it is today. The scientists of today have far more tools at their disposal, and and have made greate strides in explaining the development of life on this wonderful planet. Your all too simple and ignorant rants not only have no revelance, they are indications that you have little concept of reality.

This was the post to which you have been unable to respond:

1. BTW....I can disprove it in several ways, including the fact that he posited simple organisms that evolved into numerous more complex one.


2. If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see,if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.


4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.



a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.



b. ... December 4, 1995,Time Magazinepublished a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.



c.Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail: January 2013



And....the best you can do is bloviate?
This?
"The scientists of today have far more tools at their disposal, and and have made greate strides."



The only strides that have been made are in indoctrination....you're the example for that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even Charles FOrt would say you are nuts...

I wonder how much enjoyment he would get out of gathering up a goodly collection of her posts and pouring over them, astutely selecting the best examples of her bizarre talent for reimagining history into I what I guess Richard Lewontin would also call " fantastical unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

Unfortunately for you, Lewontin was speaking specifically about the current state of science.
And, he was verifying exactly the point I made.

Leaves you looking like a dunce, doesn't it.

Dunce...hmph, I feel slighted that you resort to your Trumpish gradeschool level of retort in reply to my somewhat creative barb. Dunce and other synonymic equivalents are much below the standards of insult repartee I think that deserved.

That feeling of being slighted though is nothing compared to my surprise at your admiration for this fellow Lewontin, an avowed Marxist. You who has such a prolific oeuvre of rhetorical attacks on even the most moderate of liberals. Oh the fire and brimstone you have called down on liberal ideology for the slightest tilt towards the left and what you constantly decry as the evils of socialism. Yes, this acceptance of Lewontin's infusion of his socialist concepts into science and evolutionary biology....well let's just say I'm shocked, shocked I am.

Or should I be surprised? I seem to remember you using S. J. Gould to buttress your thoughts on evolution and attacking him for his. You might deserve your reputation for playing fast and loose with sources. Ahh...one more question. Why do you keep bringing up atheism when someone relates historical facts on the murderous past of religions, specifically and especially Christianity? Surely you can comprehend the difference between an individual's incitement to evil, usually rooted in some psychopathy whether he is or is not an atheist, and a Religious institution purportedly rooted in moral guidance from an omnipotent Supreme Being engaging in slaughter and genocide and justifying those acts by the supposed words of that very Deity? I suggest you find other lines of defence if you're so committed to justifying historical barbarism. That atheist dodge is a pathetic attempt at misdirection of guilt. You won't find any liberal atheists defending Hitler or Stalin the way you defend and minimize cultic evil.

Jesus, one more thing. Until you improve the state of your deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of evolution I wish you would cease with comments that imply a lack of transitional forms. The fossil record is replete with examples of transitional and intermediate species. You could easily educate yourself in these examples if you weren't so rigidly stubborn in holding onto your old fashioned regressive ideology. Ditto regarding the simplistic interpretation of the "Cambrian Explosion" you disseminate here, to everyone's mis-edification.

There, I think that's it. Carry on with your diabolical plan to rid the world of
liberalism, tho I fear it is doomed by your own intransigent estrangement from reality.

What???

You're begging for further education?

No prob.....


Gould tried to defend and buttress Darwin....but he did it by throwing Darwin under the bus.

Watch:

"Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments.

He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process (as per Darwin), but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record.

If environmental changes are the catalyst moving the evolutionary process (species adapting to a gradually changing environment), how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes? We appear to be moving toward effect without the need for cause.

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise,Ends and Means, says the following: "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.

The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html




Karl Marx loved Darwin's thesis....it mirrored his concept of history.
Gould thought up a pseudo-scientific theory of evolution that mirrored Marxism.....that would be 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' with rapid changes suddenly occurring, as with the 'proletarian revolutions'occurring in Marxist theory.

"These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee.

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries




I certainly hope you appreciate the education I am providing.

 

[Hollie]

Even Charles FOrt would say you are nuts...

I wonder how much enjoyment he would get out of gathering up a goodly collection of her posts and pouring over them, astutely selecting the best examples of her bizarre talent for reimagining history into I what I guess Richard Lewontin would also call " fantastical unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

Unfortunately for you, Lewontin was speaking specifically about the current state of science.
And, he was verifying exactly the point I made.

Leaves you looking like a dunce, doesn't it.

Dunce...hmph, I feel slighted that you resort to your Trumpish gradeschool level of retort in reply to my somewhat creative barb. Dunce and other synonymic equivalents are much below the standards of insult repartee I think that deserved.

That feeling of being slighted though is nothing compared to my surprise at your admiration for this fellow Lewontin, an avowed Marxist. You who has such a prolific oeuvre of rhetorical attacks on even the most moderate of liberals. Oh the fire and brimstone you have called down on liberal ideology for the slightest tilt towards the left and what you constantly decry as the evils of socialism. Yes, this acceptance of Lewontin's infusion of his socialist concepts into science and evolutionary biology....well let's just say I'm shocked, shocked I am.

Or should I be surprised? I seem to remember you using S. J. Gould to buttress your thoughts on evolution and attacking him for his. You might deserve your reputation for playing fast and loose with sources. Ahh...one more question. Why do you keep bringing up atheism when someone relates historical facts on the murderous past of religions, specifically and especially Christianity? Surely you can comprehend the difference between an individual's incitement to evil, usually rooted in some psychopathy whether he is or is not an atheist, and a Religious institution purportedly rooted in moral guidance from an omnipotent Supreme Being engaging in slaughter and genocide and justifying those acts by the supposed words of that very Deity? I suggest you find other lines of defence if you're so committed to justifying historical barbarism. That atheist dodge is a pathetic attempt at misdirection of guilt. You won't find any liberal atheists defending Hitler or Stalin the way you defend and minimize cultic evil.

Jesus, one more thing. Until you improve the state of your deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of evolution I wish you would cease with comments that imply a lack of transitional forms. The fossil record is replete with examples of transitional and intermediate species. You could easily educate yourself in these examples if you weren't so rigidly stubborn in holding onto your old fashioned regressive ideology. Ditto regarding the simplistic interpretation of the "Cambrian Explosion" you disseminate here, to everyone's mis-edification.

There, I think that's it. Carry on with your diabolical plan to rid the world of
liberalism, tho I fear it is doomed by your own intransigent estrangement from reality.

What???

You're begging for further education?

No prob.....


Gould tried to defend and buttress Darwin....but he did it by throwing Darwin under the bus.

Watch:

"Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments.

He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process (as per Darwin), but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record.

If environmental changes are the catalyst moving the evolutionary process (species adapting to a gradually changing environment), how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes? We appear to be moving toward effect without the need for cause.

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise,Ends and Means, says the following: "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.

The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html




Karl Marx loved Darwin's thesis....it mirrored his concept of history.
Gould thought up a pseudo-scientific theory of evolution that mirrored Marxism.....that would be 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' with rapid changes suddenly occurring, as with the 'proletarian revolutions'occurring in Marxist theory.

"These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee.

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries




I certainly hope you appreciate the education I am providing.

Are you still cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya?

 

[JoeB131]

I certainly hope you appreciate the education I am providing.

I'm sure that tons of psychiatry students would greatly benefit for studying the sustained crazy of your Manifesto...

 

[JoeB131]

Fraud Alert!


PC is up to her usual tactics of “quote mining” from the charlatans at the Disco’tute where she knowingly and fraudulently cuts and pastes lies and falsehoods prompted by Christian fundamentalist loons.

She did that in another thread where she quoted a supposed quote from Marx, half taken out of context, the other half outright fabricated... When corrected on this, she kept right on like she hadn't done a thing wrong.

But she's an academic.. No really, just ask her.

 

[dilloduck]

Even Charles FOrt would say you are nuts...

I wonder how much enjoyment he would get out of gathering up a goodly collection of her posts and pouring over them, astutely selecting the best examples of her bizarre talent for reimagining history into I what I guess Richard Lewontin would also call " fantastical unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

Unfortunately for you, Lewontin was speaking specifically about the current state of science.
And, he was verifying exactly the point I made.

Leaves you looking like a dunce, doesn't it.

Dunce...hmph, I feel slighted that you resort to your Trumpish gradeschool level of retort in reply to my somewhat creative barb. Dunce and other synonymic equivalents are much below the standards of insult repartee I think that deserved.

That feeling of being slighted though is nothing compared to my surprise at your admiration for this fellow Lewontin, an avowed Marxist. You who has such a prolific oeuvre of rhetorical attacks on even the most moderate of liberals. Oh the fire and brimstone you have called down on liberal ideology for the slightest tilt towards the left and what you constantly decry as the evils of socialism. Yes, this acceptance of Lewontin's infusion of his socialist concepts into science and evolutionary biology....well let's just say I'm shocked, shocked I am.

Or should I be surprised? I seem to remember you using S. J. Gould to buttress your thoughts on evolution and attacking him for his. You might deserve your reputation for playing fast and loose with sources. Ahh...one more question. Why do you keep bringing up atheism when someone relates historical facts on the murderous past of religions, specifically and especially Christianity? Surely you can comprehend the difference between an individual's incitement to evil, usually rooted in some psychopathy whether he is or is not an atheist, and a Religious institution purportedly rooted in moral guidance from an omnipotent Supreme Being engaging in slaughter and genocide and justifying those acts by the supposed words of that very Deity? I suggest you find other lines of defence if you're so committed to justifying historical barbarism. That atheist dodge is a pathetic attempt at misdirection of guilt. You won't find any liberal atheists defending Hitler or Stalin the way you defend and minimize cultic evil.

Jesus, one more thing. Until you improve the state of your deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of evolution I wish you would cease with comments that imply a lack of transitional forms. The fossil record is replete with examples of transitional and intermediate species. You could easily educate yourself in these examples if you weren't so rigidly stubborn in holding onto your old fashioned regressive ideology. Ditto regarding the simplistic interpretation of the "Cambrian Explosion" you disseminate here, to everyone's mis-edification.

There, I think that's it. Carry on with your diabolical plan to rid the world of
liberalism, tho I fear it is doomed by your own intransigent estrangement from reality.

What???

You're begging for further education?

No prob.....


Gould tried to defend and buttress Darwin....but he did it by throwing Darwin under the bus.

Watch:

"Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments.

He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process (as per Darwin), but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record.

If environmental changes are the catalyst moving the evolutionary process (species adapting to a gradually changing environment), how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes? We appear to be moving toward effect without the need for cause.

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise,Ends and Means, says the following: "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.

The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html




Karl Marx loved Darwin's thesis....it mirrored his concept of history.
Gould thought up a pseudo-scientific theory of evolution that mirrored Marxism.....that would be 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' with rapid changes suddenly occurring, as with the 'proletarian revolutions'occurring in Marxist theory.

"These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee.

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries




I certainly hope you appreciate the education I am providing.

You're dealing the liberals----you're gonna have to dumb this wayyyyyyy down for them to get it. Keep up the good work.

 

[JoeB131]

This was the post to which you have been unable to respond:

Naw, we are just ignoring you reposting page 159 of the "Crazy Mail Order Bride Manifesto"....

Plagiarizing some shit you found on Answers in Genesis isn't an argument.

The fact is, you are never going to have a perfect fossil record.

This essay takes apart the Creationist abuse of the Cambrian explosion as a "challenge" to evolution.

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?

The major animal body plans that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion did not include the appearance of modern animal groups such as: starfish, crabs, insects, fish, lizards, birds and mammals. These animal groups all appeared at various times much later in the fossil record.3 The forms that appeared in the Cambrian Explosion were more primitive than these later groups, and many of them were soft-bodied organisms -

Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6 - See more at: Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even Charles FOrt would say you are nuts...

I wonder how much enjoyment he would get out of gathering up a goodly collection of her posts and pouring over them, astutely selecting the best examples of her bizarre talent for reimagining history into I what I guess Richard Lewontin would also call " fantastical unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

Unfortunately for you, Lewontin was speaking specifically about the current state of science.
And, he was verifying exactly the point I made.

Leaves you looking like a dunce, doesn't it.

Dunce...hmph, I feel slighted that you resort to your Trumpish gradeschool level of retort in reply to my somewhat creative barb. Dunce and other synonymic equivalents are much below the standards of insult repartee I think that deserved.

That feeling of being slighted though is nothing compared to my surprise at your admiration for this fellow Lewontin, an avowed Marxist. You who has such a prolific oeuvre of rhetorical attacks on even the most moderate of liberals. Oh the fire and brimstone you have called down on liberal ideology for the slightest tilt towards the left and what you constantly decry as the evils of socialism. Yes, this acceptance of Lewontin's infusion of his socialist concepts into science and evolutionary biology....well let's just say I'm shocked, shocked I am.

Or should I be surprised? I seem to remember you using S. J. Gould to buttress your thoughts on evolution and attacking him for his. You might deserve your reputation for playing fast and loose with sources. Ahh...one more question. Why do you keep bringing up atheism when someone relates historical facts on the murderous past of religions, specifically and especially Christianity? Surely you can comprehend the difference between an individual's incitement to evil, usually rooted in some psychopathy whether he is or is not an atheist, and a Religious institution purportedly rooted in moral guidance from an omnipotent Supreme Being engaging in slaughter and genocide and justifying those acts by the supposed words of that very Deity? I suggest you find other lines of defence if you're so committed to justifying historical barbarism. That atheist dodge is a pathetic attempt at misdirection of guilt. You won't find any liberal atheists defending Hitler or Stalin the way you defend and minimize cultic evil.

Jesus, one more thing. Until you improve the state of your deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of evolution I wish you would cease with comments that imply a lack of transitional forms. The fossil record is replete with examples of transitional and intermediate species. You could easily educate yourself in these examples if you weren't so rigidly stubborn in holding onto your old fashioned regressive ideology. Ditto regarding the simplistic interpretation of the "Cambrian Explosion" you disseminate here, to everyone's mis-edification.

There, I think that's it. Carry on with your diabolical plan to rid the world of
liberalism, tho I fear it is doomed by your own intransigent estrangement from reality.

What???

You're begging for further education?

No prob.....


Gould tried to defend and buttress Darwin....but he did it by throwing Darwin under the bus.

Watch:

"Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments.

He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process (as per Darwin), but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record.

If environmental changes are the catalyst moving the evolutionary process (species adapting to a gradually changing environment), how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes? We appear to be moving toward effect without the need for cause.

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise,Ends and Means, says the following: "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.

The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html




Karl Marx loved Darwin's thesis....it mirrored his concept of history.
Gould thought up a pseudo-scientific theory of evolution that mirrored Marxism.....that would be 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' with rapid changes suddenly occurring, as with the 'proletarian revolutions'occurring in Marxist theory.

"These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee.

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries




I certainly hope you appreciate the education I am providing.

You're dealing the liberals----you're gonna have to dumb this wayyyyyyy down for them to get it. Keep up the good work.

Thank you, dillo....

I have to believe that, as some point....deep down, they will begin to wonder why everything in the posts is accurate, supported and shatters the worldview that they've been trained to accept.


On the other hand, it does appear that, for many, their indoctrination is indelible.

 

[Hollie]

I wonder how much enjoyment he would get out of gathering up a goodly collection of her posts and pouring over them, astutely selecting the best examples of her bizarre talent for reimagining history into I what I guess Richard Lewontin would also call " fantastical unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

Unfortunately for you, Lewontin was speaking specifically about the current state of science.
And, he was verifying exactly the point I made.

Leaves you looking like a dunce, doesn't it.

Dunce...hmph, I feel slighted that you resort to your Trumpish gradeschool level of retort in reply to my somewhat creative barb. Dunce and other synonymic equivalents are much below the standards of insult repartee I think that deserved.

That feeling of being slighted though is nothing compared to my surprise at your admiration for this fellow Lewontin, an avowed Marxist. You who has such a prolific oeuvre of rhetorical attacks on even the most moderate of liberals. Oh the fire and brimstone you have called down on liberal ideology for the slightest tilt towards the left and what you constantly decry as the evils of socialism. Yes, this acceptance of Lewontin's infusion of his socialist concepts into science and evolutionary biology....well let's just say I'm shocked, shocked I am.

Or should I be surprised? I seem to remember you using S. J. Gould to buttress your thoughts on evolution and attacking him for his. You might deserve your reputation for playing fast and loose with sources. Ahh...one more question. Why do you keep bringing up atheism when someone relates historical facts on the murderous past of religions, specifically and especially Christianity? Surely you can comprehend the difference between an individual's incitement to evil, usually rooted in some psychopathy whether he is or is not an atheist, and a Religious institution purportedly rooted in moral guidance from an omnipotent Supreme Being engaging in slaughter and genocide and justifying those acts by the supposed words of that very Deity? I suggest you find other lines of defence if you're so committed to justifying historical barbarism. That atheist dodge is a pathetic attempt at misdirection of guilt. You won't find any liberal atheists defending Hitler or Stalin the way you defend and minimize cultic evil.

Jesus, one more thing. Until you improve the state of your deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of evolution I wish you would cease with comments that imply a lack of transitional forms. The fossil record is replete with examples of transitional and intermediate species. You could easily educate yourself in these examples if you weren't so rigidly stubborn in holding onto your old fashioned regressive ideology. Ditto regarding the simplistic interpretation of the "Cambrian Explosion" you disseminate here, to everyone's mis-edification.

There, I think that's it. Carry on with your diabolical plan to rid the world of
liberalism, tho I fear it is doomed by your own intransigent estrangement from reality.

What???

You're begging for further education?

No prob.....


Gould tried to defend and buttress Darwin....but he did it by throwing Darwin under the bus.

Watch:

"Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments.

He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process (as per Darwin), but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record.

If environmental changes are the catalyst moving the evolutionary process (species adapting to a gradually changing environment), how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes? We appear to be moving toward effect without the need for cause.

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise,Ends and Means, says the following: "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.

The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html




Karl Marx loved Darwin's thesis....it mirrored his concept of history.
Gould thought up a pseudo-scientific theory of evolution that mirrored Marxism.....that would be 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' with rapid changes suddenly occurring, as with the 'proletarian revolutions'occurring in Marxist theory.

"These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee.

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries




I certainly hope you appreciate the education I am providing.

You're dealing the liberals----you're gonna have to dumb this wayyyyyyy down for them to get it. Keep up the good work.

Thank you, dillo....

I have to believe that, as some point....deep down, they will begin to wonder why everything in the posts is accurate, supported and shatters the worldview that they've been trained to accept.


On the other hand, it does appear that, for many, their indoctrination is indelible.

Why would you expect anyone to accept the phony, edited, parsed and manipulated "quotes" you dump into these silly threads you create.

Have you considered why Harun Yahya, the Disco'tute and your various fundamentalist creation ministries are not taken seriously by the relevant science community?

 

[Hollie]

I think those intermediary evolutionary stages get competed out, so you end up with no trace of them. For example, in the 1980's there were 20++ different computer architectures and formats on the desktop market. Now there is only the IBM PC format and architecture, and this will be the one going into history to provide enough specimens to fossilize. With that said, most of your points work only if we consider time, including geological time, a linear uninterrupted quantity. There is no proof to this assumption.

1. I included this:

"...preserved fossils of such excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."


2. And, there's this...

The import of the Burgess Shale: how to explain the sudden rise of such extensive diversity during the Cambrian? Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.

Ignoring evidence to the contrary is hardly science.

In fact, it is the very antithesis of science.

a. 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, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


3. ....the evidence of the Burgess Shale spotlights not just the increase in complexity....but the sudden quantum leap in complexity!

Its the fact of radical differences, novel body plans that do not arise from a gradual sequence of intermediates that requires the removal of Darwin's theory to the ash bin!


4. More evidence: Opabinia- 15 articulated body segments, 28 gills, 30 flipper-like swimming lobes, long trunk-like proboscis, intricate nervous system...and five separate eyes!

a. Stephen Gould actually tried to pretend that Opabinia came to exist....get this....by 'unusual evolutionary mechanisms.

"This was one of the primary reasons why Gould in his book on the Burgess Shale, Wonderful Life, considered that Early Cambrian life was much more diverse and "experimental" than any later set of animals and that the Cambrian explosion was a truly dramatic event, possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms." Opabinia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms."

Doesn't relate to Darwin...does it.

On both scientific and theological basis, I find no contradiction between evolutionary theories and God as creator. Politically however the contradiction is total. It is possible that the theory of evolution and its fossil artifacts are all a window to how God progresses creation, measured using geological time.

It appears a clarification is necessary here.
I thought I was precise....but perhaps not.
No one is claiming that there is not or is not evolution...

There are a number of theories of evolution. My posts always specify discrepancies with Darwin's thesis.

It is incorrect.

Yet, it is accepted as fact and law...you can see that in posts such as those of Rocks, earlier in the thread.

And....you put you finger on the reason when you say 'politically.'

Your posts specify nothing except your lack of logic. Darwin's theory, that of Natural Selection, still stands, and it is not a religious straight jacket, but a framework within which to develop our knowledge of how life came to be what it is today. The scientists of today have far more tools at their disposal, and and have made greate strides in explaining the development of life on this wonderful planet. Your all too simple and ignorant rants not only have no revelance, they are indications that you have little concept of reality.

This was the post to which you have been unable to respond:

1. BTW....I can disprove it in several ways, including the fact that he posited simple organisms that evolved into numerous more complex one.


2. If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see,if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.


4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.



a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.



b. ... December 4, 1995,Time Magazinepublished a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.



c.Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail: January 2013



And....the best you can do is bloviate?
This?
"The scientists of today have far more tools at their disposal, and and have made greate strides."



The only strides that have been made are in indoctrination....you're the example for that.

You become the object of ridicule when you "quote-mine" such nonsense from the Disco'tute.

 

[dilloduck]

I wonder how much enjoyment he would get out of gathering up a goodly collection of her posts and pouring over them, astutely selecting the best examples of her bizarre talent for reimagining history into I what I guess Richard Lewontin would also call " fantastical unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

Unfortunately for you, Lewontin was speaking specifically about the current state of science.
And, he was verifying exactly the point I made.

Leaves you looking like a dunce, doesn't it.

Dunce...hmph, I feel slighted that you resort to your Trumpish gradeschool level of retort in reply to my somewhat creative barb. Dunce and other synonymic equivalents are much below the standards of insult repartee I think that deserved.

That feeling of being slighted though is nothing compared to my surprise at your admiration for this fellow Lewontin, an avowed Marxist. You who has such a prolific oeuvre of rhetorical attacks on even the most moderate of liberals. Oh the fire and brimstone you have called down on liberal ideology for the slightest tilt towards the left and what you constantly decry as the evils of socialism. Yes, this acceptance of Lewontin's infusion of his socialist concepts into science and evolutionary biology....well let's just say I'm shocked, shocked I am.

Or should I be surprised? I seem to remember you using S. J. Gould to buttress your thoughts on evolution and attacking him for his. You might deserve your reputation for playing fast and loose with sources. Ahh...one more question. Why do you keep bringing up atheism when someone relates historical facts on the murderous past of religions, specifically and especially Christianity? Surely you can comprehend the difference between an individual's incitement to evil, usually rooted in some psychopathy whether he is or is not an atheist, and a Religious institution purportedly rooted in moral guidance from an omnipotent Supreme Being engaging in slaughter and genocide and justifying those acts by the supposed words of that very Deity? I suggest you find other lines of defence if you're so committed to justifying historical barbarism. That atheist dodge is a pathetic attempt at misdirection of guilt. You won't find any liberal atheists defending Hitler or Stalin the way you defend and minimize cultic evil.

Jesus, one more thing. Until you improve the state of your deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of evolution I wish you would cease with comments that imply a lack of transitional forms. The fossil record is replete with examples of transitional and intermediate species. You could easily educate yourself in these examples if you weren't so rigidly stubborn in holding onto your old fashioned regressive ideology. Ditto regarding the simplistic interpretation of the "Cambrian Explosion" you disseminate here, to everyone's mis-edification.

There, I think that's it. Carry on with your diabolical plan to rid the world of
liberalism, tho I fear it is doomed by your own intransigent estrangement from reality.

What???

You're begging for further education?

No prob.....


Gould tried to defend and buttress Darwin....but he did it by throwing Darwin under the bus.

Watch:

"Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments.

He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process (as per Darwin), but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record.

If environmental changes are the catalyst moving the evolutionary process (species adapting to a gradually changing environment), how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes? We appear to be moving toward effect without the need for cause.

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise,Ends and Means, says the following: "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.

The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html




Karl Marx loved Darwin's thesis....it mirrored his concept of history.
Gould thought up a pseudo-scientific theory of evolution that mirrored Marxism.....that would be 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' with rapid changes suddenly occurring, as with the 'proletarian revolutions'occurring in Marxist theory.

"These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee.

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries




I certainly hope you appreciate the education I am providing.

You're dealing the liberals----you're gonna have to dumb this wayyyyyyy down for them to get it. Keep up the good work.

Thank you, dillo....

I have to believe that, as some point....deep down, they will begin to wonder why everything in the posts is accurate, supported and shatters the worldview that they've been trained to accept.


On the other hand, it does appear that, for many, their indoctrination is indelible.

Some may be salvageable. Keep up the good work. I certainly enjoy your research

 

[PoliticalChic]

Unfortunately for you, Lewontin was speaking specifically about the current state of science.
And, he was verifying exactly the point I made.

Leaves you looking like a dunce, doesn't it.

Dunce...hmph, I feel slighted that you resort to your Trumpish gradeschool level of retort in reply to my somewhat creative barb. Dunce and other synonymic equivalents are much below the standards of insult repartee I think that deserved.

That feeling of being slighted though is nothing compared to my surprise at your admiration for this fellow Lewontin, an avowed Marxist. You who has such a prolific oeuvre of rhetorical attacks on even the most moderate of liberals. Oh the fire and brimstone you have called down on liberal ideology for the slightest tilt towards the left and what you constantly decry as the evils of socialism. Yes, this acceptance of Lewontin's infusion of his socialist concepts into science and evolutionary biology....well let's just say I'm shocked, shocked I am.

Or should I be surprised? I seem to remember you using S. J. Gould to buttress your thoughts on evolution and attacking him for his. You might deserve your reputation for playing fast and loose with sources. Ahh...one more question. Why do you keep bringing up atheism when someone relates historical facts on the murderous past of religions, specifically and especially Christianity? Surely you can comprehend the difference between an individual's incitement to evil, usually rooted in some psychopathy whether he is or is not an atheist, and a Religious institution purportedly rooted in moral guidance from an omnipotent Supreme Being engaging in slaughter and genocide and justifying those acts by the supposed words of that very Deity? I suggest you find other lines of defence if you're so committed to justifying historical barbarism. That atheist dodge is a pathetic attempt at misdirection of guilt. You won't find any liberal atheists defending Hitler or Stalin the way you defend and minimize cultic evil.

Jesus, one more thing. Until you improve the state of your deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of evolution I wish you would cease with comments that imply a lack of transitional forms. The fossil record is replete with examples of transitional and intermediate species. You could easily educate yourself in these examples if you weren't so rigidly stubborn in holding onto your old fashioned regressive ideology. Ditto regarding the simplistic interpretation of the "Cambrian Explosion" you disseminate here, to everyone's mis-edification.

There, I think that's it. Carry on with your diabolical plan to rid the world of
liberalism, tho I fear it is doomed by your own intransigent estrangement from reality.

What???

You're begging for further education?

No prob.....


Gould tried to defend and buttress Darwin....but he did it by throwing Darwin under the bus.

Watch:

"Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments.

He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process (as per Darwin), but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record.

If environmental changes are the catalyst moving the evolutionary process (species adapting to a gradually changing environment), how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes? We appear to be moving toward effect without the need for cause.

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise,Ends and Means, says the following: "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.

The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html




Karl Marx loved Darwin's thesis....it mirrored his concept of history.
Gould thought up a pseudo-scientific theory of evolution that mirrored Marxism.....that would be 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' with rapid changes suddenly occurring, as with the 'proletarian revolutions'occurring in Marxist theory.

"These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee.

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries




I certainly hope you appreciate the education I am providing.

You're dealing the liberals----you're gonna have to dumb this wayyyyyyy down for them to get it. Keep up the good work.

Thank you, dillo....

I have to believe that, as some point....deep down, they will begin to wonder why everything in the posts is accurate, supported and shatters the worldview that they've been trained to accept.


On the other hand, it does appear that, for many, their indoctrination is indelible.

Some may be salvageable. Keep up the good work. I certainly enjoy your research

So....we both agree with the proverb:
It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.


Looking for a bonfire.

 

[Hollie]

Dunce...hmph, I feel slighted that you resort to your Trumpish gradeschool level of retort in reply to my somewhat creative barb. Dunce and other synonymic equivalents are much below the standards of insult repartee I think that deserved.

That feeling of being slighted though is nothing compared to my surprise at your admiration for this fellow Lewontin, an avowed Marxist. You who has such a prolific oeuvre of rhetorical attacks on even the most moderate of liberals. Oh the fire and brimstone you have called down on liberal ideology for the slightest tilt towards the left and what you constantly decry as the evils of socialism. Yes, this acceptance of Lewontin's infusion of his socialist concepts into science and evolutionary biology....well let's just say I'm shocked, shocked I am.

Or should I be surprised? I seem to remember you using S. J. Gould to buttress your thoughts on evolution and attacking him for his. You might deserve your reputation for playing fast and loose with sources. Ahh...one more question. Why do you keep bringing up atheism when someone relates historical facts on the murderous past of religions, specifically and especially Christianity? Surely you can comprehend the difference between an individual's incitement to evil, usually rooted in some psychopathy whether he is or is not an atheist, and a Religious institution purportedly rooted in moral guidance from an omnipotent Supreme Being engaging in slaughter and genocide and justifying those acts by the supposed words of that very Deity? I suggest you find other lines of defence if you're so committed to justifying historical barbarism. That atheist dodge is a pathetic attempt at misdirection of guilt. You won't find any liberal atheists defending Hitler or Stalin the way you defend and minimize cultic evil.

Jesus, one more thing. Until you improve the state of your deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of evolution I wish you would cease with comments that imply a lack of transitional forms. The fossil record is replete with examples of transitional and intermediate species. You could easily educate yourself in these examples if you weren't so rigidly stubborn in holding onto your old fashioned regressive ideology. Ditto regarding the simplistic interpretation of the "Cambrian Explosion" you disseminate here, to everyone's mis-edification.

There, I think that's it. Carry on with your diabolical plan to rid the world of
liberalism, tho I fear it is doomed by your own intransigent estrangement from reality.

What???

You're begging for further education?

No prob.....


Gould tried to defend and buttress Darwin....but he did it by throwing Darwin under the bus.

Watch:

"Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments.

He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process (as per Darwin), but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record.

If environmental changes are the catalyst moving the evolutionary process (species adapting to a gradually changing environment), how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes? We appear to be moving toward effect without the need for cause.

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise,Ends and Means, says the following: "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.

The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html




Karl Marx loved Darwin's thesis....it mirrored his concept of history.
Gould thought up a pseudo-scientific theory of evolution that mirrored Marxism.....that would be 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' with rapid changes suddenly occurring, as with the 'proletarian revolutions'occurring in Marxist theory.

"These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee.

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries




I certainly hope you appreciate the education I am providing.

You're dealing the liberals----you're gonna have to dumb this wayyyyyyy down for them to get it. Keep up the good work.

Thank you, dillo....

I have to believe that, as some point....deep down, they will begin to wonder why everything in the posts is accurate, supported and shatters the worldview that they've been trained to accept.


On the other hand, it does appear that, for many, their indoctrination is indelible.

Some may be salvageable. Keep up the good work. I certainly enjoy your research

So....we both agree with the proverb:
It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.


Looking for a bonfire.

Better yet to shine the illuminating light of inquiry on the charlatans and freak shows you so admire at the Disco'tute.


Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski

#24: David Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

 

[Hollie]

I think those intermediary evolutionary stages get competed out, so you end up with no trace of them. For example, in the 1980's there were 20++ different computer architectures and formats on the desktop market. Now there is only the IBM PC format and architecture, and this will be the one going into history to provide enough specimens to fossilize. With that said, most of your points work only if we consider time, including geological time, a linear uninterrupted quantity. There is no proof to this assumption.

1. I included this:

"...preserved fossils of such excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."


2. And, there's this...

The import of the Burgess Shale: how to explain the sudden rise of such extensive diversity during the Cambrian? Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.

Ignoring evidence to the contrary is hardly science.

In fact, it is the very antithesis of science.

a. 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, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


3. ....the evidence of the Burgess Shale spotlights not just the increase in complexity....but the sudden quantum leap in complexity!

Its the fact of radical differences, novel body plans that do not arise from a gradual sequence of intermediates that requires the removal of Darwin's theory to the ash bin!


4. More evidence: Opabinia- 15 articulated body segments, 28 gills, 30 flipper-like swimming lobes, long trunk-like proboscis, intricate nervous system...and five separate eyes!

a. Stephen Gould actually tried to pretend that Opabinia came to exist....get this....by 'unusual evolutionary mechanisms.

"This was one of the primary reasons why Gould in his book on the Burgess Shale, Wonderful Life, considered that Early Cambrian life was much more diverse and "experimental" than any later set of animals and that the Cambrian explosion was a truly dramatic event, possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms." Opabinia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms."

Doesn't relate to Darwin...does it.

On both scientific and theological basis, I find no contradiction between evolutionary theories and God as creator. Politically however the contradiction is total. It is possible that the theory of evolution and its fossil artifacts are all a window to how God progresses creation, measured using geological time.

It appears a clarification is necessary here.
I thought I was precise....but perhaps not.
No one is claiming that there is not or is not evolution...

There are a number of theories of evolution. My posts always specify discrepancies with Darwin's thesis.

It is incorrect.

Yet, it is accepted as fact and law...you can see that in posts such as those of Rocks, earlier in the thread.

And....you put you finger on the reason when you say 'politically.'

Your posts specify nothing except your lack of logic. Darwin's theory, that of Natural Selection, still stands, and it is not a religious straight jacket, but a framework within which to develop our knowledge of how life came to be what it is today. The scientists of today have far more tools at their disposal, and and have made greate strides in explaining the development of life on this wonderful planet. Your all too simple and ignorant rants not only have no revelance, they are indications that you have little concept of reality.

This was the post to which you have been unable to respond:

1. BTW....I can disprove it in several ways, including the fact that he posited simple organisms that evolved into numerous more complex one.


2. If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see,if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.


4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.



a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.



b. ... December 4, 1995,Time Magazinepublished a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.



c.Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail: January 2013



And....the best you can do is bloviate?
This?
"The scientists of today have far more tools at their disposal, and and have made greate strides."



The only strides that have been made are in indoctrination....you're the example for that.

Stephen Meyer...... wait, what?



Encyclopedia of American Loons: #276: Stephen Meyer

Stephen C. Meyer is a philosopher and one of the hotshots of the Discovery Institute. And like some philosophers and all Discovery Institute people, he likes to make grand claims about scientific fields about which he must be counted as an illiterate. Meyer helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the major hive for the ID creationist movement. Meyer is currently vice president and a senior fellow at CSC, and a director of the Access Research Network. He has been described as “the person who brought ID (intelligent design) to DI (Discovery Institute)”, he contributed to the second edition of Dean Kenyon’s “Of Pandas and People”, wrote (with Ralph Seelke) the ID textbook “Explore Evolution”, was appointed by the Texas Board of Education to be on the committee reviewing Texas’s science curriculum standards, is the primary link to DI sponsor and Taliban theocrat loon Howard Ahmanson, and was partly responsible for the Wedge Strategy, as well as an active speaker and debate panelist.

In 1999, Meyer (with David DeWolf and Mark DeForrest) designed a legal strategy for introducing intelligent design into public schools in the book “Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum.” (I mean, the point of ID is to get creationism and religion into the schools, not to do science). He is perhaps most famous for trying to realize the strategy through helping to introduce ID to the Dover Area School District (more extensively here), and for his ridiculous 2009 book “Signature in the Cell” (which a probably drunk/dementia suffering Thomas Nagel actually praised, flaunting his own ignorance of science). PZ Myers was offered a review copy by Meyer’s assistant Janet Oberembt, but never received it. The book actually makes twelve “predictions” for ID (although they are not predictions in the ordinary scientific sense because they are not derived from any concrete theory, and they all concern testing the theory of evolution, not ID). He also offers a “theory”. The theory is unrelated to the predictions. He derives no predictions from his theory. He offers nothing resembling a coherent justification either, so the book didn’t receive much positive feedback from actual scientists. He has offered some appeals to authority, however (“Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Darwinist”).

In March 2002 he announced the “teach the controversy” strategy aimed at promoting the false idea that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education. Since Meyer knows this is false, he was lying, but dishonesty isn’t exactly a surprising trait in ID advocates. The presentation included a bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "”Darwinian evolution”. When NCSE contacted the authors, none of the authors who responded (the authors of thirty-four of the papers) thought that their research provided evidence against evolution. Meyer also publicly claimed that the “Santorum Amendment” was part of the Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was required to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. Which is demonstrably false, but tells you a lot about the DI creationists.

Of course, he thinks there is active persecution of the purportedly fast-growing number of scientists rejecting evolution in Academia (probably because he cannot find any). He was interviewed about those claims in Expelled.

Diagnosis: One of the staunchest, most influential, most dishonest anti-science advocates in the world. Crackpot and complete hack.

 

[dilloduck]

Dunce...hmph, I feel slighted that you resort to your Trumpish gradeschool level of retort in reply to my somewhat creative barb. Dunce and other synonymic equivalents are much below the standards of insult repartee I think that deserved.

That feeling of being slighted though is nothing compared to my surprise at your admiration for this fellow Lewontin, an avowed Marxist. You who has such a prolific oeuvre of rhetorical attacks on even the most moderate of liberals. Oh the fire and brimstone you have called down on liberal ideology for the slightest tilt towards the left and what you constantly decry as the evils of socialism. Yes, this acceptance of Lewontin's infusion of his socialist concepts into science and evolutionary biology....well let's just say I'm shocked, shocked I am.

Or should I be surprised? I seem to remember you using S. J. Gould to buttress your thoughts on evolution and attacking him for his. You might deserve your reputation for playing fast and loose with sources. Ahh...one more question. Why do you keep bringing up atheism when someone relates historical facts on the murderous past of religions, specifically and especially Christianity? Surely you can comprehend the difference between an individual's incitement to evil, usually rooted in some psychopathy whether he is or is not an atheist, and a Religious institution purportedly rooted in moral guidance from an omnipotent Supreme Being engaging in slaughter and genocide and justifying those acts by the supposed words of that very Deity? I suggest you find other lines of defence if you're so committed to justifying historical barbarism. That atheist dodge is a pathetic attempt at misdirection of guilt. You won't find any liberal atheists defending Hitler or Stalin the way you defend and minimize cultic evil.

Jesus, one more thing. Until you improve the state of your deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts of evolution I wish you would cease with comments that imply a lack of transitional forms. The fossil record is replete with examples of transitional and intermediate species. You could easily educate yourself in these examples if you weren't so rigidly stubborn in holding onto your old fashioned regressive ideology. Ditto regarding the simplistic interpretation of the "Cambrian Explosion" you disseminate here, to everyone's mis-edification.

There, I think that's it. Carry on with your diabolical plan to rid the world of
liberalism, tho I fear it is doomed by your own intransigent estrangement from reality.

What???

You're begging for further education?

No prob.....


Gould tried to defend and buttress Darwin....but he did it by throwing Darwin under the bus.

Watch:

"Gould was a neo-Darwinist who was honest enough to realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory was untenable without some hypothetical adjustments.

He knew that the absence of transitional forms (missing links) threatened to discredit traditional evolution. In the words of D.M.S. Watson, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven...but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

So what did Gould do? Leap into the embrace of God? Consider the possibility that evolution cannot explain the observable evidence? Far from it. Gould co-authored a new addendum to his religion of meaningless existence, and called it "punctuated equilibrium."

Gould claimed that evolution was not a gradual process (as per Darwin), but occurred in rapid spurts with long periods of changeless plateaus in-between. This clever idea inoculated evolution from refutation by bringing it in harmony with the existing fossil record.

If environmental changes are the catalyst moving the evolutionary process (species adapting to a gradually changing environment), how can Gould account for abrupt changes in the fossil record, without proving the earth went through corresponding cataclysmic changes? We appear to be moving toward effect without the need for cause.

The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise,Ends and Means, says the following: "For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.

The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3623.html




Karl Marx loved Darwin's thesis....it mirrored his concept of history.
Gould thought up a pseudo-scientific theory of evolution that mirrored Marxism.....that would be 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' with rapid changes suddenly occurring, as with the 'proletarian revolutions'occurring in Marxist theory.

"These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee.

One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel | The President's Desk - Summit Ministries




I certainly hope you appreciate the education I am providing.

You're dealing the liberals----you're gonna have to dumb this wayyyyyyy down for them to get it. Keep up the good work.

Thank you, dillo....

I have to believe that, as some point....deep down, they will begin to wonder why everything in the posts is accurate, supported and shatters the worldview that they've been trained to accept.


On the other hand, it does appear that, for many, their indoctrination is indelible.

Some may be salvageable. Keep up the good work. I certainly enjoy your research

So....we both agree with the proverb:
It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.


Looking for a bonfire.

well ya never know--some day one of these libs maybe able to try to explain where they are trying to lead society. I mean other than some vague mumbo jumbo crap.

 

[Old Rocks]

I really think that PC and Obligation Launch should get together, they deserve each other.