Real Science…Not Darwin

[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?

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.

Harun Yahya groupies have difficulty with science terms and definitions so I’m happy to lend an assist for the learning challenged.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

www.talkorigins.org

hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanismof evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

[Hollie]

"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

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31485065_Darwinism_The_Refutation_of_a_Myth

“... appears that Lovtrup is defending macro-mutations, and he rejects micro-mutations as the sole mechanism of evolution (p261,274). Indeed on p369 we find: "It thus appears that all the objections against the macromutation theory may easily be met, and this is in itself perhaps the
most compelling evidence in its favour“

 

[Grumblenuts]

Lol

Dodged the question again.

You're pretty gutless, huh?

Question? I wasn't even addressing you.
No sense of humor? Figures.

 

[forkup]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.

Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.

Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.

Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.

Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.

"...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


"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?

Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?

 

[Hollie]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.

Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.

Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.

"...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


"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?

Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?

Richard Francis is a freelance science writer.




Francis Hitching is one, world class whack job.

Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

www.talkorigins.org

Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books, The Neck of the Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force, but does not like Darwinism.


Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."

Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural and Instead of Darwin.


It appears the OP spends an inordinate amount of time trolling some very, very odd people with very, very odd notions.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Lol

Dodged the question again.

You're pretty gutless, huh?

Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of the "Christian dark ages"?
Why the demand that Christian theory be imposed on the uninformed?

 

[forkup]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.

Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.

Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.

"...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


"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?

Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?

First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.

Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.

Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.

As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.

By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?

 

[anynameyouwish]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.


in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!

you saying it doesn't make it so.

 

[Grumblenuts]

By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?

Just not in them damned gubmint pubick skools!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lol

Dodged the question again.

You're pretty gutless, huh?

Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of the "Christian dark ages"?
Why the demand that Christian theory be imposed on the uninformed?

You're lying in both comments.


Shows lack of upbringing, and how deeply wounded you are when your religion, Darwinism, is criticized.


I don't believe there is any medication for your condition.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.

Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.

Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.

"...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


"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?

Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?

First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.

Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.

Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.

As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.

By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?

Is the quote correct?

Of course it is.

We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.

It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.



“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6

. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”



“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.


in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!

you saying it doesn't make it so.

See if you can provide the 'evidence.'

I know you won't mind being wrong.....you prove that every day.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

 

[Grumblenuts]

“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski

Philip Zaleski is the author and editor of several books on religion and spirituality, including The Recollected Heart,[1] The Benedictines of Petersham,[2] and Gifts of the Spirit.[3] In addition, he is coauthor with his wife Carol Zaleski of The Book of Heaven,[4] Prayer: A History,[5][6] and The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of The Inklings J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams.

See? "Real Science…Not Darwin"

 

[esalla]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.


in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!

you saying it doesn't make it so.

See if you can provide the 'evidence.'

I know you won't mind being wrong.....you prove that every day.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

So what you seem to be saying is that God kept fucking up and had to constantly reinvent new stuff because the old stuff all died off

Did that ever cross your mind?

 

[Hollie]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

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.

First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant

I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.

Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.

Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.

"...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


"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?

Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?

First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.

Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.

Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.

As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.

By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?

Is the quote correct?

Of course it is.

We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.

It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.



“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6

. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”



“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski

As expected, you have returned to your usual habit of selectively editing “quotes” to press your young earth creationist agenda.


The edited “quote” you dumped into this thread is one you have used countless times in spite of you knowing it’s out of context and dishonestly edited.

“To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer”

As you know, your dishonesty with the above “quote” has been pointed out repeatedly yet here you are, a serial fraud.

Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes

Quote #2.4
[Re: The fossil record is incorrectly presented as incontrovertible evidence of the validity of evolutionary theory]

"The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." - The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Penguins Books, New York, Edition 6, p. 310.

Representative quote miners: The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation and The Creation Explanation: The Primeval World -- Fossils, Geology & Earth History: What Do the Fossils Say?

The more complete context is:

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. Several eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their head, were until recently convinced that we beheld in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the first dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and E. Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy. Not very long ago M. Barrande added another and lower stage, abounding with new and peculiar species, beneath the then known Silurian system; and now, still lower down in the Lower Cambrian formation, Mr. Hicks has found in South Wales beds rich in trilobites, and containing various molluscs and annelids. The presence of phosphatic nodules and bituminous matter, even in some of the lowest azoic rocks, probably indicates life at these periods; and the existence of the Eozoon in the Laurentian formation of Canada is generally admitted. There are three great series of strata beneath the Silurian system in Canada, in the lowest of which the Eozoon is found. Sir W. Logan states that their "united thickness may possibly far surpass that of all the succeeding rocks, from the base of the palæozoic series to the present time. We are thus carried back to a period so remote that the appearance of the so-called primordial fauna (of Barrande) may by some be considered as a comparatively modern event." The Eozoon belongs to the most lowly organised of all classes of animals, but is highly organised for its class; it existed in count less numbers, and, as Dr. Dawson has remarked, certainly preyed on other minute organic beings, which must have lived in great numbers. Thus the words, which I wrote in 1859, about the existence of living beings long before the Cambrian period, and which are almost the same with those since used by Sir W. Logan, have proved true. Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more invariably it has suffered extreme denudation and metamorphism.

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the several successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea. - Origin of Species, 6th Ed. John Murray, 1872, Chapter 10, pp. 286-288.

Darwin is concerned about the lack of fossils before the Cambrian, and seeks to explain it in terms of the wearing away of the earlier strata. He notes here (sixth edition, 1872) that he had said in 1859 (first edition) that fossils would be found in earlier strata, and they eventually were. However, Darwin was probably mislead about the Eozoon formations, as they are not currently considered a real fossil but a metamorphic feature formed from the segregation of minerals in marble through the influence of great heat and pressure.

Tectonic subduction, something that Darwin could not known of, has destroyed some of the relevant material but mostly he was right. The older the sediment, the greater the chance that it has either eroded away or been metamorphosed to an extent that fossils are destroyed. Even so, we have multicellular fossils now back to the Ediacaran (circa 580 million years before the present) and single cell fossils arguably back to 3.75 billion years. The valid argument no longer has any purchase, and Darwin has been vindicated.

Citing it out of the specific context suggests Darwin thought there were a lot of things he could not explain using evolution, and that he knew it was false. This is extraordinarily bad quote mining.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski

Philip Zaleski is the author and editor of several books on religion and spirituality, including The Recollected Heart,[1] The Benedictines of Petersham,[2] and Gifts of the Spirit.[3] In addition, he is coauthor with his wife Carol Zaleski of The Book of Heaven,[4] Prayer: A History,[5][6] and The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of The Inklings J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams.

See? "Real Science…Not Darwin"

Is his quote correct......and, for you, painful?

The rest of what you wrote has not a thing to do with the truth of his quote.

Now.....truth, is something foreign to you.

Did you want to apologize for the two lies you implied about me in your previous post?
I find that with a certain regularity, your sort, believers in Darwin, have no compunction about lying.
So very many see no problem with it when left speechless by the the evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.


in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!

you saying it doesn't make it so.

See if you can provide the 'evidence.'

I know you won't mind being wrong.....you prove that every day.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

So what you seem to be saying is that God kept fucking up and had to constantly reinvent new stuff because the old stuff all died off

Did that ever cross your mind?

Vulgarity is a sure sign that one recognizes having lost the debate.

 

[esalla]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.


in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!

you saying it doesn't make it so.

See if you can provide the 'evidence.'

I know you won't mind being wrong.....you prove that every day.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).

So what you seem to be saying is that God kept fucking up and had to constantly reinvent new stuff because the old stuff all died off

Did that ever cross your mind?

Vulgarity is a sure sign that one recognizes having lost the debate.

Please explain why the life that God made all sucked so bad that 98 percent of it went extinct forcing God to keep reinventing new stuff? Is God stupid or something?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Did you want to apologize for the two lies you implied about me in your previous post?

No, why, were you considering apologizing for your original two strawman assertions (lies) that I subsequently tweaked to mock you with?