Real Science…Not Darwin

[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

Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.

I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.

As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.

You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.

And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.

Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.

Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:

"and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."

I never lie.



But watch how easily I prove you are lying:

. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

I never lie.

Oh really?

there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?

the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.

Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal

Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another

Guess what? This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals

So explain to me please how you don't lie?

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868

"In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor

Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by you in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868


“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”― Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, the American Museum of Natural History

 

[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?

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

Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.

I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.

As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.

You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.

And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.

Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.

Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:

"and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."

I never lie.



But watch how easily I prove you are lying:

. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

I never lie.

Oh really?

there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?

the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.

Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal

Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another

Guess what? This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals

So explain to me please how you don't lie?

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868

"In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor

Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by you in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868


“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”― Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, the American Museum of Natural History

Nope still no mulligan, you can quote the pope for all I care.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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

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

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




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

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



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

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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



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

Glad you brought up this particular example.

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

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

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



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



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

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

Did you not understand the condition?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


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

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



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

I told you why.

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

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

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

biologos.org

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

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


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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.

By definition a theory is not fact.

And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.

Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.

So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?

 

[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

Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.

I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.

As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.

You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.

And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.

Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.

Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:

"and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."

I never lie.



But watch how easily I prove you are lying:

. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

I never lie.

Oh really?

there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?

the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.

Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal

Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another

Guess what? This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals

So explain to me please how you don't lie?

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868

"In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor

Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by you in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868


“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”― Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, the American Museum of Natural History

Nope still no mulligan, you can quote the pope for all I care.

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868



In his book “The Intelligent Universe” (1983) Hoyle wrote: “Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?”

According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros). That is about the same chance as throwing 50,000 sixes in a row with a die. Or as Hoyle describes it: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein… I am at a loss to understand biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious.” (“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.)



It appears his statement is contrary to your claim of "no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."


Did you want to retract that claim?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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




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

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



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

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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



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

Glad you brought up this particular example.

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

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

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



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



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

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

Did you not understand the condition?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


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

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



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

I told you why.

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

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

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

biologos.org

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

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


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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

You've changed the question.

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


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

Just not brave enough to state it.

It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.

By definition a theory is not fact.

And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.

Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.

So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?

You are mis-remembering your instruction.

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”


The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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

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

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




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

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



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

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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



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

Glad you brought up this particular example.

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

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

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



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



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

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

Did you not understand the condition?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


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

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



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

I told you why.

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

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

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

biologos.org

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

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


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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.

By definition a theory is not fact.

And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.

Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.

So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?

You are mis-remembering your instruction.

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”


The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.

So show me in any widely used public school text where it definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a fact.

If it is indeed taught as fact it should be easy for you to provide the requested references.

 

[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?

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

Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.

I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.

As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.

You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.

And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.

Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.

Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:

"and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."

I never lie.



But watch how easily I prove you are lying:

. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

I never lie.

Oh really?

there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?

the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.

Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal

Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another

Guess what? This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals

So explain to me please how you don't lie?

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868

"In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor

Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by you in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868


“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”― Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, the American Museum of Natural History

Nope still no mulligan, you can quote the pope for all I care.

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868



In his book “The Intelligent Universe” (1983) Hoyle wrote: “Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?”

According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros). That is about the same chance as throwing 50,000 sixes in a row with a die. Or as Hoyle describes it: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein… I am at a loss to understand biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious.” (“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.)



It appears his statement is contrary to your claim of "no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."


Did you want to retract that claim?

NO MULLIGAN, you want to play further first you will have to address the fossil record. Not some quote from someone you found online who said something in 1983 but actually address it. I gave several transitional forms between land mammals and whales and reptiles and mammals, anything that's not that will no get a reply from me anymore. I don't mind wasting my time on this forum but you are simply boring now.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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




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

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



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

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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



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

Glad you brought up this particular example.

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

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

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



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



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

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

Did you not understand the condition?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


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

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



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

I told you why.

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

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

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

biologos.org

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

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


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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

You've changed the question.

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


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

Just not brave enough to state it.

It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.

By definition a theory is not fact.

And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.

Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.

So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?

You are mis-remembering your instruction.

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”


The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.

So show me in any widely used public school text where it definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a fact.

If it is indeed taught as fact it should be easy for you to provide the requested references.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“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)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.

By definition a theory is not fact.

And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.

Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.

So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?

You are mis-remembering your instruction.

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”


The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.

Lemme guess,.. because they exposed to the court that the label was nonsense?

 

[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

Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.

I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.

As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.

You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.

And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.

Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.

Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:

"and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."

I never lie.



But watch how easily I prove you are lying:

. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

I never lie.

Oh really?

there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?

the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.

Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal

Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another

Guess what? This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals

So explain to me please how you don't lie?

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868

"In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor

Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by you in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868


“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”― Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, the American Museum of Natural History

Nope still no mulligan, you can quote the pope for all I care.

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868



In his book “The Intelligent Universe” (1983) Hoyle wrote: “Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?”

According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros). That is about the same chance as throwing 50,000 sixes in a row with a die. Or as Hoyle describes it: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein… I am at a loss to understand biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious.” (“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.)



It appears his statement is contrary to your claim of "no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."


Did you want to retract that claim?

NO MULLIGAN, you want to play further first you will have to address the fossil record. Not some quote from someone you found online who said something in 1983 but actually address it. I gave several transitional forms between land mammals and whales and reptiles and mammals, anything that's not that will no get a reply from me anymore. I don't mind wasting my time on this forum but you are simply boring now.

"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868



. "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruit flies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruit fly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines", p. 475


But you claimed these quotes showed no problem with Darwinism........

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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




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

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



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

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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



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

Glad you brought up this particular example.

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

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

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



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



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

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

Did you not understand the condition?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


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

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



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

I told you why.

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

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

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

biologos.org

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

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


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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

You've changed the question.

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


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

Just not brave enough to state it.

It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.

By definition a theory is not fact.

And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.

Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.

So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?

You are mis-remembering your instruction.

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”


The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.

Lemme guess,.. because they exposed to the court that the label was nonsense?

Do you wish to apologize for those lies earlier?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.

As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.

 

[Blues Man]

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

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

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

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




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

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



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

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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



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

Glad you brought up this particular example.

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

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

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



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



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

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

Did you not understand the condition?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


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

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



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

I told you why.

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

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

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

biologos.org

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

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


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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.

By definition a theory is not fact.

And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.

Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.

So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?

You are mis-remembering your instruction.

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”


The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.

So show me in any widely used public school text where it definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a fact.

If it is indeed taught as fact it should be easy for you to provide the requested references.

Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“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)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.



".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy & Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos
View attachment 357223

But one can see how species of animals have changed over time. You have even been given a verified example of speciation in plants and what biologists are describing as the beginnings of speciation in birds.

This can be observed at least some animals via the fossil record but once again we do not have a complete fossil record of every species of plant or animal that has ever exited. Once again this is one of the main reasons Evolution is still considered a theory.

I do not see where in that excerpt that it states the Theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact. All it states is that there is evidence that an animal species can change over time. And you do not dispute that do you?

And is that embryo study from the nineteenth century taught in public schools today as fact and proof of the Theory of evolution?

So if you are going to make a claim that evolution is taught as a scientifically proven fact please provide evidence where in any widely used public text that it clearly states Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact.

Don't give me inferences or some crap from the 19th century.

 

[Blues Man]

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.

As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.

I have never once called Evolution a fact. If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.

When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?

I bet not.

In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Militant Secularism will succeed.

Thanks for your support

 

[Grumblenuts]

Don't give me inferences or some crap

Good general response to this phony topic.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why be for "Militant Secularism"?

Barr grossly misrepresented the American Founders’ views on the importance of religion, while giving lip service to the separation between state and church. He bizarrely claimed:

“Experience teaches that, to be strong enough to control willful human beings, moral values must be based on authority independent of man’s will. In other words, they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being. Men are far likelier to obey rules that come from God than to abide by the abstract outcome of an ad hoc utilitarian calculus.”

Barr made it clear he does not think that laws should be based on trying to make the world a better place. Instead, he thinks that laws should seek to “control” humans by convincing them that if they do not obey the rules, they are displeasing a “Supreme Being.” There is a word for this approach to lawmaking: theocracy. In Barr’s case, he is a proponent of the Christian Nationalism version of theocracy.

Poorly edumacated? Misinformed? Ya think?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.

As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.

I have never once called Evolution a fact. If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.

When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?

I bet not.

In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.

Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?

I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?

 

[Hollie]

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.

As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.

I’ve noticed that the hyper-religious tend to get frantic and retreat to rather bizarre conspiracy theories when their extremist beliefs are challenged.

 

[alang1216]

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being. The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree. If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.