Real Science…Not Darwin

[PoliticalChic]

"If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
Nancy Pearcey

Which makes perfect sense "because of the loss of sequence homology and synteny over evolutionary time. Although polyploidization is less prevalent in animals, nearly 200 independent examples of polyploidy have been reported" - also from one of your references. So you try to disclaim all credit while quoting conflicting messages willy nilly. Ages of mess = your posting history it seems.

"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology."Michael Behe
Darwin's Black Box (1996), page 26
Reference given is to: Science Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, pp. 379-381
Which references: American Zoologist, 30:861-875 (1990)
CRITICS OF DARWINISM

 

[Blues Man]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory. It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process

We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


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

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?

Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.

So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground

 

[Blues Man]

Cambrian Period - Fossils, Paleoclimate, Evolution

Cambrian Period - Fossils, Paleoclimate, Evolution: Global climate during Cambrian time was probably warmer and more equable than today. An absence of either land or landlocked seas at the Cambrian poles may have prevented the accumulation of polar ice caps. The general absence of glacial till...

www.britannica.com

The preservation of the record of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition was significantly affected by global changes in sea level. During latest Precambrian time, the sea level was relatively low, resulting in spatially restricted oceans and expanded continents. Throughout much of the Cambrian, rising seas gradually flooded vast land areas. Sediment was eroded from the continents and deposited in adjacent seas. Because of low sea level, the sedimentary and fossil records of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition are generally most complete toward the outer margins of continental shelves. As a corollary, the time gaps, represented by the boundary surface, generally increase in landward directions. This has led to an absence or serious incompleteness of the transitional record in most areas, particularly in those of classical Cambrian studies. As a result, it is thought that this incompleteness, combined with a general deficiency in knowledge—prior to the mid-1900s—of Precambrian communities, contributed significantly to the long-held notion of an abrupt or sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I provide tons of scientists arguing against Darwinism.

It's because you were taught it as a fact.

Wrong. I was taught that questioning theory, even well established theory, is crucial to scientific methodology and progress. As Hollie has well exposed here, you simply don't understand what the real scientists have actually said and done, so defer to like minded charlatans making similar fart noises.

If you are claiming that government school doesn't treat Darwinism as a fact.....you are lying.


Wikipedia, controlled by Leftists, writes:


"Why is evolution considered to be a scientific theory?
Natural selection provides the outline of an explanatory theory." Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and evolution is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants."

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory. It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process

We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


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

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?

Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.

So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cambrian Period - Fossils, Paleoclimate, Evolution

Cambrian Period - Fossils, Paleoclimate, Evolution: Global climate during Cambrian time was probably warmer and more equable than today. An absence of either land or landlocked seas at the Cambrian poles may have prevented the accumulation of polar ice caps. The general absence of glacial till...

www.britannica.com

The preservation of the record of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition was significantly affected by global changes in sea level. During latest Precambrian time, the sea level was relatively low, resulting in spatially restricted oceans and expanded continents. Throughout much of the Cambrian, rising seas gradually flooded vast land areas. Sediment was eroded from the continents and deposited in adjacent seas. Because of low sea level, the sedimentary and fossil records of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition are generally most complete toward the outer margins of continental shelves. As a corollary, the time gaps, represented by the boundary surface, generally increase in landward directions. This has led to an absence or serious incompleteness of the transitional record in most areas, particularly in those of classical Cambrian studies. As a result, it is thought that this incompleteness, combined with a general deficiency in knowledge—prior to the mid-1900s—of Precambrian communities, contributed significantly to the long-held notion of an abrupt or sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils.

Watch this:


To further isolate the problem for Darwin's apologists, although one can certainly argue that the fossil record does not preserve soft parts as readily as hard parts, it has preserved many soft-bodied animals, organs, and anatomical structures from both the Cambrian and Precambrian periods. Myers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 61.

a. Case in point: sedimentary rock in various places around the world have preserved fossilized colonial blue-green algae, other single-celled algae, and eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus). Brocks, et al., "Archean Molecular Fossils and the Early Rise of Eukaryotes" Archean Molecular Fossils and the Early Rise of Eukaryotes | Science

b. The Burgess Shale, the same: numerous examples of entirely soft-bodied organism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin based his theory on the fossil record.

Was he wrong about that?

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


How about we relate this to schoolchilden?

Why not?

 

[Blues Man]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory. It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process

We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


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

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?

Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.

So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?

I told you why.

And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?

Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - BioLogos

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.

biologos.org

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory. It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process

We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


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

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?

Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.

So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?

I told you why.

And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?

Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - BioLogos

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.

biologos.org

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

Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.


“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?

Why?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why are the vast majority of your quotes from 30 or more years ago, practically none from the current century, why?

 

[Blues Man]

Cambrian Period - Fossils, Paleoclimate, Evolution

Cambrian Period - Fossils, Paleoclimate, Evolution: Global climate during Cambrian time was probably warmer and more equable than today. An absence of either land or landlocked seas at the Cambrian poles may have prevented the accumulation of polar ice caps. The general absence of glacial till...

www.britannica.com

The preservation of the record of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition was significantly affected by global changes in sea level. During latest Precambrian time, the sea level was relatively low, resulting in spatially restricted oceans and expanded continents. Throughout much of the Cambrian, rising seas gradually flooded vast land areas. Sediment was eroded from the continents and deposited in adjacent seas. Because of low sea level, the sedimentary and fossil records of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition are generally most complete toward the outer margins of continental shelves. As a corollary, the time gaps, represented by the boundary surface, generally increase in landward directions. This has led to an absence or serious incompleteness of the transitional record in most areas, particularly in those of classical Cambrian studies. As a result, it is thought that this incompleteness, combined with a general deficiency in knowledge—prior to the mid-1900s—of Precambrian communities, contributed significantly to the long-held notion of an abrupt or sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils.

Watch this:


To further isolate the problem for Darwin's apologists, although one can certainly argue that the fossil record does not preserve soft parts as readily as hard parts, it has preserved many soft-bodied animals, organs, and anatomical structures from both the Cambrian and Precambrian periods. Myers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 61.

a. Case in point: sedimentary rock in various places around the world have preserved fossilized colonial blue-green algae, other single-celled algae, and eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus). Brocks, et al., "Archean Molecular Fossils and the Early Rise of Eukaryotes" Archean Molecular Fossils and the Early Rise of Eukaryotes | Science

b. The Burgess Shale, the same: numerous examples of entirely soft-bodied organism.

Look all I ever said about Darwinsim is that there are examples that fit his theory.

We know speciation occurs in plants and that it can occur in a very short period of time. We also have what can be called preliminary speciation observed in birds over a very short period

Speciation in real time

evolution.berkeley.edu

And do you really think we have a fossil record of absolutely every life form that ever existed?

Only when we have that can anyone say with certainty what really happened. Since we will never have that complete fossil record all we will ever have is theories

Very much like the origin of the universe. Until we know what happened before the creation event all we can do is theorize.

 

[Blues Man]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory. It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process

We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


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

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?

Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.

So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?

I told you why.

And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?

Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - BioLogos

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.

biologos.org

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

Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.


“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?

Why?

Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why are the vast majority of your quotes from 30 or more years ago, practically none from the current century, why?

That's a lie.

 

[Hollie]

We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


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

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?

You dumped the above fraud “quote” into the other nonsense thread you opened.

My, but you are a rather desperate fundie.


Cutting and pasting the same fraud.

There is no valid link. This is a cheap creationist fraud that appears to link to a science journal but redirects elsewhere.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists(http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)





No link to Nature exists. The link redirects here: freerepublic.com/focus/fr/854288/posts
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory. It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process

We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


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

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?

Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.

So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?

I told you why.

And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?

Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - BioLogos

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.

biologos.org

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

Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.


“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?

Why?

Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor

I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.

 

[Hollie]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory. It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process

We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


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

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?

Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.

So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?

I told you why.

And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?

Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - BioLogos

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.

biologos.org

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

Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.


“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?

Why?

Darwinism is consistent with testing and observation.

Your preferred method of fear and ignore, ie. Harun Yahya'ism is not.

 

[Blues Man]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory. It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process

We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


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

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?

Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.

So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?

I told you why.

And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?

Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - BioLogos

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.

biologos.org

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

Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.


“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?

Why?

Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor

I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.

You don't know the answer either. And I have told you why it can't be answered.

We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.

All we have are theories. All you have is a theory. Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory. It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process

We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


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

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?

Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.

So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

The actual fossil record shows the opposite of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?

I told you why.

And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?

Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - BioLogos

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.

biologos.org

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

Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.


“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?

Why?

Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor

I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.

You don't know the answer either. And I have told you why it can't be answered.

We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.

All we have are theories. All you have is a theory. Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?

You've changed the question.

It is this: why, since Darwin's Theory is flawed, proven wrong, not documented in the evidence, why is it imposed in schools as if a fact?


And.....I do know the answer.
And I believe you're smart enough to know the answer, as well.

Just not brave enough to state it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lol

Dodged the question again.

You're pretty gutless, huh?