Real Science…Not Darwin

[Grumblenuts]

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????

no--it means it's getting to YOU--since you made a thread on it
hahahahahhahahahahah

Uh, way more than one.. OMG, things evolve? HORRORS!

 

[PoliticalChic]

.there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict.

Why would you listen to them? The fact that such talk threatens you says more about you than it does about them.

Faith is a personal thing. If you're the only person on the planet who has faith in someone, it's no less valid than if everyone had faith in it.

"the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible."

"Well, that's just stupid. "

This post isn't consistent with what you wrote earlier.

Turns out he was correct, wasn't he.

You seem to be mixing a scientific theory that has data and evidence with the opinions of some scientists and non-scientist that they are just pulling out of their collective arses.

All the available evidence supports evolution as the most probable (emphasis on probable) theory to explain life on Earth.

But, if a scientist of political activist thinks that proves or disproves matters of faith, then he (or she) is full of bull.

"You seem to be mixing a scientific theory that has data and evidence ..."


You appear determined to win the "Windbag Award."

You provided no such 'data and evidence.'

Know why?

There is none.

That's what I have shown in these several thread.

 

[Hollie]

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



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

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

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


And this winner:

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



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




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

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


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



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

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

What makes advancing it so important?

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

1. When did quote/unquote Darwinism become a quote/unquote hot topic?

2. It appears that the quote/unquote hyper-religious are the entities opening multiple threads frantically quote/unquote quoting from quote/unquote religionists in frantic attempts to denigrate science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is a 'species' and what does it have to do with disproving Darwinism?


8. If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.

Hence, the amusement caused by the dunce who wrote this:
“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





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.



Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.



Folks with a science IQ recognize that “Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians” can all interbreed, and are, therefore members of the same species.
This is real science......not Darwinism.

 

[Hollie]

What is a 'species' and what does it have to do with disproving Darwinism?


8. If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.

Hence, the amusement caused by the dunce who wrote this:
“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





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.



Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.



Folks with a science IQ recognize that “Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians” can all interbreed, and are, therefore members of the same species.
This is real science......not Darwinism.

1. variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use a term describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the examples you use.

2. Another term you don’t understand is speciation. That’s not surprising as the fundie ministries you use as the sources of your cutting and pasting have a predefined agenda that is announced by the “Statement of Faith” that is common to the various fundie ministries.

3. Observed Instances of Speciation

4. Some More Observed Speciation Events

5. CB910: New species

6. This is real science.......not religionism.

 

[LuckyDuck]

I don't know what it is with these religious nutjobs that keep putting their absolutely UNSCIENTIFIC bible crap in the science section. There is a completely separate religious section on these boards for that. There is absolutely NOTHING SCIENTIFIC about religion, the bible and the belief in an invisible all-powerful, all-knowing, can-do-anything, supernatural thingy in the sky. There are approximately 4,200 religions in the world and they're not SCIENTIFIC...not even the Scientology religion. As for evolution, the scientific stand is that it is both, fact and theory, meaning that they recognize that evolution exists, but...do not completely understand its mechanism. Not completely understanding the mechanism doesn't mean that whatever you don't completely understand, brings in the invisible thingy to be an explanation. That's just reducing a current or any unknown to a childish/superstitious cop out. "We don't know everything, let's just insert the invisible thingy and say he/she/it, did it. It saves us all the headache of actual research in trying to understand the universe."

 

[harmonica]

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????

no--it means it's getting to YOU--since you made a thread on it
hahahahahhahahahahah

Yet, here you are, proving what I wrote.

sure I am!! hahahahahahhahahah

 

[Grumblenuts]

Or

That's just reducing a current or any unknown to a childish/superstitious cop out. "We don't know everything, let's just

fear it, blow it up, bomb it, smash it, start a war over it.

 

[harmonica]

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????

no--it means it's getting to YOU--since you made a thread on it
hahahahahhahahahahah

Yet, here you are, proving what I wrote.

...so---last time--explain in about 10 sentences your creation of man theory = a fully formed human just ''appeared''???!!

 

[LuckyDuck]

Or

That's just reducing a current or any unknown to a childish/superstitious cop out. "We don't know everything, let's just

fear it, blow it up, bomb it, smash it, start a war over it.

The only thing I'm willing to go to war over is to resist Communism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't know what it is with these religious nutjobs that keep putting their absolutely UNSCIENTIFIC bible crap in the science section. There is a completely separate religious section on these boards for that. There is absolutely NOTHING SCIENTIFIC about religion, the bible and the belief in an invisible all-powerful, all-knowing, can-do-anything, supernatural thingy in the sky. There are approximately 4,200 religions in the world and they're not SCIENTIFIC...not even the Scientology religion. As for evolution, the scientific stand is that it is both, fact and theory, meaning that they recognize that evolution exists, but...do not completely understand its mechanism. Not completely understanding the mechanism doesn't mean that whatever you don't completely understand, brings in the invisible thingy to be an explanation. That's just reducing a current or any unknown to a childish/superstitious cop out. "We don't know everything, let's just insert the invisible thingy and say he/she/it, did it. It saves us all the headache of actual research to try and understand the universe."

"I don't know what it is with these religious nutjobs that keep putting their absolutely UNSCIENTIFIC bible crap in the science section."


Watch how easily I prove you a lying low-life, simply the sort government school turns out by the bushel.


There is nothing about religion or the Bible as evidence against Darwin in any of my posts.

It is all 100% unadulterated science knowledge.....all sourced, documented and linked.


You are able to check all of it, and you will find me to be totally correct, accurate and true.


Now....why are you so angered by truth?

 

[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????

no--it means it's getting to YOU--since you made a thread on it
hahahahahhahahahahah

Yet, here you are, proving what I wrote.

...so---last time--explain in about 10 sentences your creation of man theory = a fully formed human just ''appeared''???!!

Why?

This thread is very specific:
This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.



In any number of sentences, explain why these are true:

“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



Or....simply admit you are a dunce.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Or

That's just reducing a current or any unknown to a childish/superstitious cop out. "We don't know everything, let's just

fear it, blow it up, bomb it, smash it, start a war over it.

The only thing I'm willing to go to war over is to resist Communism.

Let's see then fascism okay, white supremacy, alien invasion,.. Fine, but communist subversion, communist infiltration, communist fluoridation of our precious bodily fluids! Now hit the button! Never!

 

[alang1216]

You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

Well, see, you say that.

I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.

In other words, you appeal to authority to convince us. Did you forget your own (cut and pasted) words: "Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority".

 

[PoliticalChic]

You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

Well, see, you say that.

I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.

In other words, you appeal to authority to convince us. Did you forget your own (cut and pasted) words: "Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority".

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

So sorry you are not able to 'appeal' to either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's pick up where Darwin left off.

9. The history of breeding of both plants and animals has often found changes in individuals. Breeders who liked the modification attempt to mate organisms in the hope that it becomes set in all of the stock. This is not evolution. These sorts of alterations, good or bad, have never led to new species.



"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 fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly 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, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

 

[Hollie]

You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

Well, see, you say that.

I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.

In other words, you appeal to authority to convince us. Did you forget your own (cut and pasted) words: "Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority".

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

So sorry you are not able to 'appeal' to either.

1. Where have you quote/unquote appealed to knowledge by quote/unquote quoting from fundie ID'iot creationist websites?

 

[Hollie]

Let's pick up where Darwin left off.

9. The history of breeding of both plants and animals has often found changes in individuals. Breeders who liked the modification attempt to mate organisms in the hope that it becomes set in all of the stock. This is not evolution. These sorts of alterations, good or bad, have never led to new species.



"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 fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly 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, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

Let's begin with what you don't know.

1. variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use a term describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the examples you use.

2. Another term you don’t understand is speciation. That’s not surprising as the fundie ministries you use as the sources of your cutting and pasting have a predefined agenda that is announced by the “Statement of Faith” that is common to the various fundie ministries.

3. Observed Instances of Speciation

4. Some More Observed Speciation Events

5. CB910: New species

6. This is real science.......not religionism.

 

[alang1216]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

 

[alang1216]

The reason why it is an important discussion is because the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible. It renders all Believers to be superstitious fools. This is why they insist that Evolution is a "fact."

And of course, the irony is that the very statement that, "Evolution is a fact" reveals the scientific ignorance of the speaker. No true scientist would ever express such nonsense.

I think the subject divides us into two camps: those that see the world as it is and those that see the world the way they want it to be.