On The Disparity of Species

[Hollie]

Let me save you the heartache......don't read it.

Why would I be interested in reading the same phony, plagiarized "quotes" you littered your last four threads with?



Let me save you some heartache: drink the Kool Aid.

Good doggie.

You poor, dear.



No audience for your plagiarized cut and paste?



Email your pals at Harun Yahya if you're looking for a friend.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I would bet hard money that someone told you that, and that you couldn't explain what you just said if your life depended on it.

I am a science writer.

Enjoy my blog--http://markgelbart.wordpress.com/

You lucky thing!

There is so much you can learn from my posts!

Mizzzy, "Some people are saying" your posts cure insomnia.

 

[alan1]

while i believe evolution exists, we all did not evolve from a common ancestor. we change within our own species, but we didn't start out as a bug or a plant. and oly man has developed to the level man has. as the bible describes to rule and control the other species. there was a higher order of design applied here, more than chance.

By 'evolution,' you mean organisms changing over time due to accumulation of random changes....finally resulting in new species, different enough so that they no longer interbreed with the 'evolved' species.....


It sure is a neat idea.

And, if we disallow any idea of an outside force....some sort of teleological explanation....then Darwin's theory sounds pretty darn good.


Problem is....there is no proof of the theory.

Not in nature...not in the laboratory....has one species been shown to evolve into another.

So....what to base belief in Darwinian evolution on?


“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Hebrews 11.1

New species are discovered on a pretty regular basis. https://www.google.com/#q=new+species+found+2013

Over the past year, as I've seen these articles, one thing stands out to me. Almost every new species discovered is very similar to an existing species. What makes them "new" is that the two different species cannot produce viable/fertile offspring if they inter-breed.

I may be wrong, but I see three possible explanations for these newly discovered species.
1) They have always existed and man has just now learned of them.
2) God suddenly decided to introduce a new species to the planet.
3) The new species evolved from an existing species.

[MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] In my mind, option 3 is much more plausible than options 1 and 2 for most cases.
Evolution is usually slow, the Cambrian period spans a time frame of millions of years, not something one can observe in a lifetime. While new species may be discovered in my lifetime, that doesn't mean the evolution of them occurred within my lifetime.

 

[PoliticalChic]

while i believe evolution exists, we all did not evolve from a common ancestor. we change within our own species, but we didn't start out as a bug or a plant. and oly man has developed to the level man has. as the bible describes to rule and control the other species. there was a higher order of design applied here, more than chance.

By 'evolution,' you mean organisms changing over time due to accumulation of random changes....finally resulting in new species, different enough so that they no longer interbreed with the 'evolved' species.....


It sure is a neat idea.

And, if we disallow any idea of an outside force....some sort of teleological explanation....then Darwin's theory sounds pretty darn good.


Problem is....there is no proof of the theory.

Not in nature...not in the laboratory....has one species been shown to evolve into another.

So....what to base belief in Darwinian evolution on?


“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Hebrews 11.1

New species are discovered on a pretty regular basis. https://www.google.com/#q=new+species+found+2013

Over the past year, as I've seen these articles, one thing stands out to me. Almost every new species discovered is very similar to an existing species. What makes them "new" is that the two different species cannot produce viable/fertile offspring if they inter-breed.

I may be wrong, but I see three possible explanations for these newly discovered species.
1) They have always existed and man has just now learned of them.
2) God suddenly decided to introduce a new species to the planet.
3) The new species evolved from an existing species.

[MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] In my mind, option 3 is much more plausible than options 1 and 2 for most cases.
Evolution is usually slow, the Cambrian period spans a time frame of millions of years, not something one can observe in a lifetime. While new species may be discovered in my lifetime, that doesn't mean the evolution of them occurred within my lifetime.

I believe the issue in question is whether or not Darwin's theory is correct.

And, a corollary....how Gould's punctuated equilibrium relates to same.

 

[Hollie]

By 'evolution,' you mean organisms changing over time due to accumulation of random changes....finally resulting in new species, different enough so that they no longer interbreed with the 'evolved' species.....


It sure is a neat idea.

And, if we disallow any idea of an outside force....some sort of teleological explanation....then Darwin's theory sounds pretty darn good.


Problem is....there is no proof of the theory.

Not in nature...not in the laboratory....has one species been shown to evolve into another.

So....what to base belief in Darwinian evolution on?


“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Hebrews 11.1

New species are discovered on a pretty regular basis. https://www.google.com/#q=new+species+found+2013

Over the past year, as I've seen these articles, one thing stands out to me. Almost every new species discovered is very similar to an existing species. What makes them "new" is that the two different species cannot produce viable/fertile offspring if they inter-breed.

I may be wrong, but I see three possible explanations for these newly discovered species.
1) They have always existed and man has just now learned of them.
2) God suddenly decided to introduce a new species to the planet.
3) The new species evolved from an existing species.

[MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] In my mind, option 3 is much more plausible than options 1 and 2 for most cases.
Evolution is usually slow, the Cambrian period spans a time frame of millions of years, not something one can observe in a lifetime. While new species may be discovered in my lifetime, that doesn't mean the evolution of them occurred within my lifetime.

I believe the issue in question is whether or not Darwin's theory is correct.

And, a corollary....how Gould's punctuated equilibrium relates to same.

The issue in question is your lack of education concerning science.


And a corollary.... your cutting and pasting of fraudulent "quotes" from Harun Yahta.

 

[alan1]

By 'evolution,' you mean organisms changing over time due to accumulation of random changes....finally resulting in new species, different enough so that they no longer interbreed with the 'evolved' species.....


It sure is a neat idea.

And, if we disallow any idea of an outside force....some sort of teleological explanation....then Darwin's theory sounds pretty darn good.


Problem is....there is no proof of the theory.

Not in nature...not in the laboratory....has one species been shown to evolve into another.

So....what to base belief in Darwinian evolution on?


“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Hebrews 11.1

New species are discovered on a pretty regular basis. https://www.google.com/#q=new+species+found+2013

Over the past year, as I've seen these articles, one thing stands out to me. Almost every new species discovered is very similar to an existing species. What makes them "new" is that the two different species cannot produce viable/fertile offspring if they inter-breed.

I may be wrong, but I see three possible explanations for these newly discovered species.
1) They have always existed and man has just now learned of them.
2) God suddenly decided to introduce a new species to the planet.
3) The new species evolved from an existing species.

[MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] In my mind, option 3 is much more plausible than options 1 and 2 for most cases.
Evolution is usually slow, the Cambrian period spans a time frame of millions of years, not something one can observe in a lifetime. While new species may be discovered in my lifetime, that doesn't mean the evolution of them occurred within my lifetime.

I believe the issue in question is whether or not Darwin's theory is correct.

And, a corollary....how Gould's punctuated equilibrium relates to same.

Of the three possible explanations I offered, one would related to Darwinism (the third), the other two would be related to Divinity. I think Darwin is closer to correct.

I said that evolution is usually slow, but it is not always slow.
Allow me the indulgence to posit a small example.

Peanut allergy used to be an almost non-existent portion of the human population. I suppose that is because people used to die from peanut allergy. Today, people with a peanut allergy are identified quickly and avoid peanuts, so they survive. Peanut allergy is now common. It's Darwinism in reverse. The increased number of people with a peanut allergy is still evolution. Instead of the strong surviving and the week dieing (in this example, peanut allergy), we are allowing the week to procreate, thus increasing the number of week in our species. That doesn't happen in the animal world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

New species are discovered on a pretty regular basis. https://www.google.com/#q=new+species+found+2013

Over the past year, as I've seen these articles, one thing stands out to me. Almost every new species discovered is very similar to an existing species. What makes them "new" is that the two different species cannot produce viable/fertile offspring if they inter-breed.

I may be wrong, but I see three possible explanations for these newly discovered species.
1) They have always existed and man has just now learned of them.
2) God suddenly decided to introduce a new species to the planet.
3) The new species evolved from an existing species.

[MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION] In my mind, option 3 is much more plausible than options 1 and 2 for most cases.
Evolution is usually slow, the Cambrian period spans a time frame of millions of years, not something one can observe in a lifetime. While new species may be discovered in my lifetime, that doesn't mean the evolution of them occurred within my lifetime.

I believe the issue in question is whether or not Darwin's theory is correct.

And, a corollary....how Gould's punctuated equilibrium relates to same.

Of the three possible explanations I offered, one would related to Darwinism (the third), the other two would be related to Divinity. I think Darwin is closer to correct.

I said that evolution is usually slow, but it is not always slow.
Allow me the indulgence to posit a small example.

Peanut allergy used to be an almost non-existent portion of the human population. I suppose that is because people used to die from peanut allergy. Today, people with a peanut allergy are identified quickly and avoid peanuts, so they survive. Peanut allergy is now common. It's Darwinism in reverse. The increased number of people with a peanut allergy is still evolution. Instead of the strong surviving and the week dieing (in this example, peanut allergy), we are allowing the week to procreate, thus increasing the number of week in our species. That doesn't happen in the animal world.

So....what is your opinion of Darwin's thesis of random mutations which accumulate and lead, gradually to speciation?

That is the question....not whether or not the theory of evolution is closer to the truth than a religious one.

And....if Darwin was incorrect, what to make of Gould's thesis which claims a sudden, fully formed new species.


Those are the questions that my OPs expressed.

Bringing religion in is the side-step of the Darwinists.

 

[Hollie]

I believe the issue in question is whether or not Darwin's theory is correct.

And, a corollary....how Gould's punctuated equilibrium relates to same.

Of the three possible explanations I offered, one would related to Darwinism (the third), the other two would be related to Divinity. I think Darwin is closer to correct.

I said that evolution is usually slow, but it is not always slow.
Allow me the indulgence to posit a small example.

Peanut allergy used to be an almost non-existent portion of the human population. I suppose that is because people used to die from peanut allergy. Today, people with a peanut allergy are identified quickly and avoid peanuts, so they survive. Peanut allergy is now common. It's Darwinism in reverse. The increased number of people with a peanut allergy is still evolution. Instead of the strong surviving and the week dieing (in this example, peanut allergy), we are allowing the week to procreate, thus increasing the number of week in our species. That doesn't happen in the animal world.

So....what is your opinion of Darwin's thesis of random mutations which accumulate and lead, gradually to speciation?

That is the question....not whether or not the theory of evolution is closer to the truth than a religious one.

And....if Darwin was incorrect, what to make of Gould's thesis which claims a sudden, fully formed new species.


Those are the questions that my OPs expressed.

Bringing religion in is the side-step of the Darwinists.

As usual, you lie.



Your OP was a poorly assembled collection of parsed, edited and out of context "quotes" that are staples of fundamentalist Christian websites.


For those like you at the Flat Earth Society, fraudulent "quotes", such as those that litter this thread, are intended to cast doubt on the established science surrounding evolution.


Your fraudulent "quotes" are merely boilerplate cut and paste lies and dishonestly edited material you simply steal from fundamentalist christian websites.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of the three possible explanations I offered, one would related to Darwinism (the third), the other two would be related to Divinity. I think Darwin is closer to correct.

I said that evolution is usually slow, but it is not always slow.
Allow me the indulgence to posit a small example.

Peanut allergy used to be an almost non-existent portion of the human population. I suppose that is because people used to die from peanut allergy. Today, people with a peanut allergy are identified quickly and avoid peanuts, so they survive. Peanut allergy is now common. It's Darwinism in reverse. The increased number of people with a peanut allergy is still evolution. Instead of the strong surviving and the week dieing (in this example, peanut allergy), we are allowing the week to procreate, thus increasing the number of week in our species. That doesn't happen in the animal world.

So....what is your opinion of Darwin's thesis of random mutations which accumulate and lead, gradually to speciation?

That is the question....not whether or not the theory of evolution is closer to the truth than a religious one.

And....if Darwin was incorrect, what to make of Gould's thesis which claims a sudden, fully formed new species.


Those are the questions that my OPs expressed.

Bringing religion in is the side-step of the Darwinists.

As usual, you lie.



Your OP was a poorly assembled collection of parsed, edited and out of context "quotes" that are staples of fundamentalist Christian websites.


For those like you at the Flat Earth Society, fraudulent "quotes", such as those that litter this thread, are intended to cast doubt on the established science surrounding evolution.


Your fraudulent "quotes" are merely boilerplate cut and paste lies and dishonestly edited material you simply steal from fundamentalist christian websites.

Actually, I never lie.


If there were any falsehoods in my posts even an imbecile like you would be able to point them out.

But you haven't.



As I said, you simply insert these stock phrases:

you lie.
out of context
fundamentalist
cut and paste
fraudulent

You appear incapable of grasping the ideas involved....either that or I am completely correct.

But you did add one thing to which I'd agree...

"...intended to cast doubt on the established science surrounding evolution."

Yup....if Darwin is your guy, I've more than 'cast doubt on'....I've eviscerated his theory

 

[Hollie]

So....what is your opinion of Darwin's thesis of random mutations which accumulate and lead, gradually to speciation?

That is the question....not whether or not the theory of evolution is closer to the truth than a religious one.

And....if Darwin was incorrect, what to make of Gould's thesis which claims a sudden, fully formed new species.


Those are the questions that my OPs expressed.

Bringing religion in is the side-step of the Darwinists.

As usual, you lie.



Your OP was a poorly assembled collection of parsed, edited and out of context "quotes" that are staples of fundamentalist Christian websites.


For those like you at the Flat Earth Society, fraudulent "quotes", such as those that litter this thread, are intended to cast doubt on the established science surrounding evolution.


Your fraudulent "quotes" are merely boilerplate cut and paste lies and dishonestly edited material you simply steal from fundamentalist christian websites.

Actually, I never lie.


If there were any falsehoods in my posts even an imbecile like you would be able to point them out.

But you haven't.



As I said, you simply insert these stock phrases:

you lie.
out of context
fundamentalist
cut and paste
fraudulent

You appear incapable of grasping the ideas involved....either that or I am completely correct.

But you did add one thing to which I'd agree...

"...intended to cast doubt on the established science surrounding evolution."

Yup....if Darwin is your guy, I've more than 'cast doubt on'....I've eviscerated his theory

As I noted, and your cutting and pasting proves, your lies are defined by:



out of context, parsed and edited "quotes",
stolen From fundamentalist websites, consisting of,
cut and paste lies,
completely and demonstrably fraudulent.


Thanks for agreeing that you're a fraud.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of the three possible explanations I offered, one would related to Darwinism (the third), the other two would be related to Divinity. I think Darwin is closer to correct.

I said that evolution is usually slow, but it is not always slow.
Allow me the indulgence to posit a small example.
Peanut allergy used to be an almost non-existent portion of the human population. I suppose that is because people used to die from peanut allergy. Today, people with a peanut allergy are identified quickly and avoid peanuts, so they survive. Peanut allergy is now common. It's Darwinism in reverse. The increased number of people with a peanut allergy is still evolution. Instead of the strong surviving and the week dieing (in this example, peanut allergy), we are allowing the week to procreate, thus increasing the number of week in our species. That doesn't happen in the animal world.

So....what is your opinion of Darwin's thesis of random mutations which accumulate and lead, gradually to speciation?
That is the question....not whether or not the theory of evolution is closer to the truth than a religious one.
And....if Darwin was incorrect, what to make of Gould's thesis which claims a sudden, fully formed new species.
Those are the questions that my OPs expressed.
Bringing religion in is the side-step of the Darwinists.

You KNOW full well that Gould HIMSELF believes in Darwinian evolution and obviously Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT contradict it.

"sudden" in geologic terms could be Tens/Hundreds of Thousands, or even Millions of Yeas. It is NOT a creation event.

GOULD:

Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened.
We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of Evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists Pervert and Caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.

Despite this YOU use Gould a supporting you,.
You LIE and Mislead.

Your posts are [always] Intentionally DISHONEST in this respect.
You try to jump on uncontexted, seemingly contradictory, snippets that are NOT so.
YOU LIE Hourly.
YOU MISLEAD in the name of Christ.
If there is a God, You will ROT in hell for intentionally trying to mislead others.
`





As he says about YOUR Pos

Oh, no.....another moronic post.


How do I get to be a bug-light for imbeciles?



Darwin: gradual changes due to an accumulation of random mutations.
Gould: sudden rapid species formation with no precursors.


Now I have to teach 'em English as well as science.


grad·u·al
ˈgrajo͞oəl/Submit
adjective
1.
taking place or progressing slowly or by degrees.
"the gradual introduction of new methods"
synonyms: slow, measured, unhurried, cautious;


sud·den
ˈsədn/Submit
adjective
1.
occurring or done quickly and unexpectedly or without warning.
"a sudden bright flash"
synonyms: unexpected, unforeseen, unanticipated, unlooked-for;



"Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT contradict it."
Yeah, it does, you dope.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As usual, you lie.



Your OP was a poorly assembled collection of parsed, edited and out of context "quotes" that are staples of fundamentalist Christian websites.


For those like you at the Flat Earth Society, fraudulent "quotes", such as those that litter this thread, are intended to cast doubt on the established science surrounding evolution.


Your fraudulent "quotes" are merely boilerplate cut and paste lies and dishonestly edited material you simply steal from fundamentalist christian websites.

Actually, I never lie.


If there were any falsehoods in my posts even an imbecile like you would be able to point them out.

But you haven't.



As I said, you simply insert these stock phrases:

you lie.
out of context
fundamentalist
cut and paste
fraudulent

You appear incapable of grasping the ideas involved....either that or I am completely correct.

But you did add one thing to which I'd agree...

"...intended to cast doubt on the established science surrounding evolution."

Yup....if Darwin is your guy, I've more than 'cast doubt on'....I've eviscerated his theory

As I noted, and your cutting and pasting proves, your lies are defined by:



out of context, parsed and edited "quotes",
stolen From fundamentalist websites, consisting of,
cut and paste lies,
completely and demonstrably fraudulent.


Thanks for agreeing that you're a fraud.

Still can't address the facts?


Got it.

 

[abu afak]

I believe the issue in question is whether or not Darwin's theory is correct.
And, a corollary....how Gould's punctuated equilibrium relates to same.

Of the three possible explanations I offered, one would related to Darwinism (the third), the other two would be related to Divinity. I think Darwin is closer to correct.

I said that evolution is usually slow, but it is not always slow.
Allow me the indulgence to posit a small example.
Peanut allergy used to be an almost non-existent portion of the human population. I suppose that is because people used to die from peanut allergy. Today, people with a peanut allergy are identified quickly and avoid peanuts, so they survive. Peanut allergy is now common. It's Darwinism in reverse. The increased number of people with a peanut allergy is still evolution. Instead of the strong surviving and the week dieing (in this example, peanut allergy), we are allowing the week to procreate, thus increasing the number of week in our species. That doesn't happen in the animal world.

So....what is your opinion of Darwin's thesis of random mutations which accumulate and lead, gradually to speciation?
That is the question....not whether or not the theory of evolution is closer to the truth than a religious one.
And....if Darwin was incorrect, what to make of Gould's thesis which claims a sudden, fully formed new species.
Those are the questions that my OPs expressed.
Bringing religion in is the side-step of the Darwinists.

You KNOW full well that Gould HIMSELF believes in Darwinian evolution and obviously Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT contradict it.

"sudden" in geologic terms could be Tens/Hundreds of Thousands, or even Millions of Yeas. It is NOT a creation event.

GOULD Himself

"..Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened.
We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of Evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.

Creationists Pervert and Caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire Creationist program includes Little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.

Despite this YOU use/ABUSE Gould as supporting you.
You know this, I have posted it often, yet You still LIE and Mislead.

Your posts are [always] Intentionally DISHONEST in this respect.
You try to jump on Uncontexted, Seemingly contradictory, snippets that are NOT so.
YOU LIE Hourly.
YOU MISLEAD in the name of Christ/Religion.
If there is a god he would be Appalled at your persistently Dishonest posts.

`

 

[Hollie]

So....what is your opinion of Darwin's thesis of random mutations which accumulate and lead, gradually to speciation?
That is the question....not whether or not the theory of evolution is closer to the truth than a religious one.
And....if Darwin was incorrect, what to make of Gould's thesis which claims a sudden, fully formed new species.
Those are the questions that my OPs expressed.
Bringing religion in is the side-step of the Darwinists.

You KNOW full well that Gould HIMSELF believes in Darwinian evolution and obviously Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT contradict it.

"sudden" in geologic terms could be Tens/Hundreds of Thousands, or even Millions of Yeas. It is NOT a creation event.

GOULD:

Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened.
We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of Evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists Pervert and Caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.

Despite this YOU use Gould a supporting you,.
You LIE and Mislead.

Your posts are [always] Intentionally DISHONEST in this respect.
You try to jump on uncontexted, seemingly contradictory, snippets that are NOT so.
YOU LIE Hourly.
YOU MISLEAD in the name of Christ.
If there is a God, You will ROT in hell for intentionally trying to mislead others.
`





As he says about YOUR Pos

Oh, no.....another moronic post.


How do I get to be a bug-light for imbeciles?



Darwin: gradual changes due to an accumulation of random mutations.
Gould: sudden rapid species formation with no precursors.


Now I have to teach 'em English as well as science.


grad·u·al
ˈgrajo͞oəl/Submit
adjective
1.
taking place or progressing slowly or by degrees.
"the gradual introduction of new methods"
synonyms: slow, measured, unhurried, cautious;


sud·den
ˈsədn/Submit
adjective
1.
occurring or done quickly and unexpectedly or without warning.
"a sudden bright flash"
synonyms: unexpected, unforeseen, unanticipated, unlooked-for;



"Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT contradict it."
Yeah, it does, you dope.

I'm afraid as someone like you who has no science background and science vocabulary, you're limited to your usual cutting and pasting with no clue as to the actual context.


You really should take time to review the ridicule directed at you for the utter absurdity that defines your cutting and pasting.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, I never lie.


If there were any falsehoods in my posts even an imbecile like you would be able to point them out.

But you haven't.



As I said, you simply insert these stock phrases:

you lie.
out of context
fundamentalist
cut and paste
fraudulent

You appear incapable of grasping the ideas involved....either that or I am completely correct.

But you did add one thing to which I'd agree...

"...intended to cast doubt on the established science surrounding evolution."

Yup....if Darwin is your guy, I've more than 'cast doubt on'....I've eviscerated his theory

As I noted, and your cutting and pasting proves, your lies are defined by:



out of context, parsed and edited "quotes",
stolen From fundamentalist websites, consisting of,
cut and paste lies,
completely and demonstrably fraudulent.


Thanks for agreeing that you're a fraud.

Still can't address the facts?


Got it.

In your dark world of fundamentalist religious dogma, you have confused fact with lies and falsehoods spewed by the creation ministries you plagiarize "quotes" from.

 

[abu afak]

PoliticalChic has started YET ANOTHER STRING (at least QUADRUPLE in fact) on the SAME TOPIC using the SAME REFUTED Material.

....
So....what is your opinion of Darwin's thesis of random mutations which accumulate and lead, gradually to speciation?
That is the question....not whether or not the theory of evolution is closer to the truth than a religious one.
And....if Darwin was incorrect, what to make of Gould's thesis which claims a sudden, fully formed new species.
Those are the questions that my OPs expressed.
Bringing religion in is the side-step of the Darwinists.

You KNOW full well that Gould HIMSELF believes in Darwinian evolution and obviously Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT contradict it.

"sudden" in geologic terms could be Tens/Hundreds of Thousands, or even Millions of Years. It is NOT a creation event.

GOULD Himself

"..Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened.
We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of Evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.

Creationists Pervert and Caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire Creationist program includes Little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.

Despite this YOU use/ABUSE Gould as supporting you.
You know this, I have posted it often, yet You still LIE and Mislead.

Your posts are [always] Intentionally DISHONEST in this respect.
You try to jump on Uncontexted, Seemingly contradictory, snippets that are NOT so.
YOU LIE Hourly.
YOU MISLEAD in the name of Christ/Religion.
If there is a god he would be Appalled at your persistently Dishonest posts.

`

 

[Sunni Man]

I really wanted to believe in Darwinism.......but I just didn't have enough faith to accept such a bizarre fantasy. ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic has started ANOTHER STRING (at lest QUADRUPLE in fact) on the SAME TOPIC using the SAME REFUTED Material

....
So....what is your opinion of Darwin's thesis of random mutations which accumulate and lead, gradually to speciation?
That is the question....not whether or not the theory of evolution is closer to the truth than a religious one.
And....if Darwin was incorrect, what to make of Gould's thesis which claims a sudden, fully formed new species.
Those are the questions that my OPs expressed.
Bringing religion in is the side-step of the Darwinists.

You KNOW full well that Gould HIMSELF believes in Darwinian evolution and obviously Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT contradict it.

"sudden" in geologic terms could be Tens/Hundreds of Thousands, or even Millions of Yeas. It is NOT a creation event.

GOULD Himself

"..Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened.
We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of Evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.

Creationists Pervert and Caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire Creationist program includes Little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.

Despite this YOU use/ABUSE Gould as supporting you.
You know this, I have posted it often, yet You still LIE and Mislead.

Your posts are [always] Intentionally DISHONEST in this respect.
You try to jump on Uncontexted, Seemingly contradictory, snippets that are NOT so.
YOU LIE Hourly.
YOU MISLEAD in the name of Christ/Religion.
If there is a god he would be Appalled at your persistently Dishonest posts.

`

1. OK....let's see who the liar is:

a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with no known antecedents to be the gravest single objection to his theory of evolution.


b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182




2. Oh....look......the liar is you!

What a delightful surprise!






Too bad......Darwin's theory is busted.


As are you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And PC's misrepresentations continue.

Creationism is for "first stories"; evolution is for science.

 

[rdean]

So if we didn't evolve, then where did we come from?