Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Real Science…Not Darwin
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
Taz
Gold Member
- Jul 8, 2014
- 22,876
- 2,119
- 190
- Banned
- #122
I bet you don't even have a job, because you're here so often.First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes.Your truth is non-existant apparently. All you can do is criticize others. And you're not even very good at that. You rely heavily on copy&paste, not your own mind.So you have nothing. Got it.So what's the truth? The White man's bible?Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
That's no way to speak to your teacher.
What I have done is prove that Darwinism is false, and there is no reason to treat it as factual.
Further, I have provided you with a lesson on microevolution so you never embarrass yourself again with a dumb statement such as this:
"Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution."
Don't forget...
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!
Secondly, you're totally willfully ignorant of real science, so even I can't help you there.
Thirdly, evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
"First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes."
That would explain why you are embarrassingly stupid.
If I had a dollar for every moron who read my posts, realized he had no answer, and then claimed he didn't read 'em....
...I'd be even wealthier than I am.
And I don't engage you often, because you're stuck on some kind of tilt of stupidity. Maybe you just need to get laid properly.
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????
Real Science…Not Darwin
Comical, really. 7 pages of yet another thread containing all the same cut and paste “quotes” from the hyper-religious spammer. Yet another thread that devolves to the OP left to juvenile insults.
- Thread starter
- #124
I bet you don't even have a job, because you're here so often.First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes.Your truth is non-existant apparently. All you can do is criticize others. And you're not even very good at that. You rely heavily on copy&paste, not your own mind.So you have nothing. Got it.So what's the truth? The White man's bible?Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
That's no way to speak to your teacher.
What I have done is prove that Darwinism is false, and there is no reason to treat it as factual.
Further, I have provided you with a lesson on microevolution so you never embarrass yourself again with a dumb statement such as this:
"Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution."
Don't forget...
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!
Secondly, you're totally willfully ignorant of real science, so even I can't help you there.
Thirdly, evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
"First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes."
That would explain why you are embarrassingly stupid.
If I had a dollar for every moron who read my posts, realized he had no answer, and then claimed he didn't read 'em....
...I'd be even wealthier than I am.
And I don't engage you often, because you're stuck on some kind of tilt of stupidity. Maybe you just need to get laid properly.
As soon as you dolts lose the argument, you default to the level you used in the third grade.
Your problem: I can explain facts to you, but I can't comprehend them for you.
This is your life.
The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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"
the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible.
Well, that's just stupid.
true------but it is the issue which creates the anal itch that torments chic
Taz
Gold Member
- Jul 8, 2014
- 22,876
- 2,119
- 190
- Banned
- #127
Better than being stuck on tilt in yours. But I bet you make some good kimchi.I bet you don't even have a job, because you're here so often.First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes.Your truth is non-existant apparently. All you can do is criticize others. And you're not even very good at that. You rely heavily on copy&paste, not your own mind.So you have nothing. Got it.So what's the truth? The White man's bible?Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
That's no way to speak to your teacher.
What I have done is prove that Darwinism is false, and there is no reason to treat it as factual.
Further, I have provided you with a lesson on microevolution so you never embarrass yourself again with a dumb statement such as this:
"Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution."
Don't forget...
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!
Secondly, you're totally willfully ignorant of real science, so even I can't help you there.
Thirdly, evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
"First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes."
That would explain why you are embarrassingly stupid.
If I had a dollar for every moron who read my posts, realized he had no answer, and then claimed he didn't read 'em....
...I'd be even wealthier than I am.
And I don't engage you often, because you're stuck on some kind of tilt of stupidity. Maybe you just need to get laid properly.
As soon as you dolts lose the argument, you default to the level you used in the third grade.
Your problem: I can explain facts to you, but I can't comprehend them for you.
This is your life.
- Thread starter
- #128
The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
1. A single truthful statement ”I don’t debate”.The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
2. You just mindlessly cut and paste “quotes” you “quote-mine” from fundie websites.
The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
1. Now this is pretty darn funny.
2. the OP is using “quotes” stolen from Harun Yahya.
.
The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
1. Now this is pretty darn funny.
2. the OP is using “quotes” stolen from Harun Yahya.
.
its the best she can do. Keep in mind----"great scientists" continue to insist
that the koran is divine
The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
1. Here’s the “quote” referencing Gordon Taylor.
2. Reference #10 at Harun Yahya.
3. The OP is a Moslem waging a cut and paste gee-had.
The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
1. Now this is pretty darn funny.
2. the OP is using “quotes” stolen from Harun Yahya.
.
its the best she can do. Keep in mind----"great scientists" continue to insist
that the koran is divine
for the record-----anyone who has a professional credential of any kind
can make REAL MONEY. JUST get in touch with the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal
foundation with your treatise on "science in the koran"
No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it againThe mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It HappenNo one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.
- Thread starter
- #135
No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it againThe mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It HappenNo one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.
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.
- Thread starter
- #136
No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it againThe mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It HappenNo one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.
Now.....about those Galapagos finches has also failed the test.
"Evodevo advocates have not given up, though. In a 2005 book titled The Plausibility of Evolution, Harvard’s Marc W. Kirschner and Berkeley’s John C. Gerhart argued that regulatory changes in DNA could make it “easy” for animals to evolve. They wrote that if such changes could be experimentally produced in a laboratory test animal then “doubters would have to admit” the plausibility of Darwinism. They concluded: “Such experiments are just now becoming feasible.”²⁴ Yet Kirschner and Gerhart cited only one such experiment. When a severe drought killed most of the finches on an island in the Galápagos in 1977, biologists observed that the survivors had, on average, slightly larger beaks. In 2004, a research team reported that Galápagos finches with larger beaks have more of a protein called Bmp4 in their embryos. When the researchers experimentally altered the amount of Bmp4 in chicken embryos, they found changes in the shapes of the embryos’ beaks, though Bmp4 has other effects as well. The researchers concluded that changes in Bmp4 may have contributed to the beak changes in Galápagos finches, though they did not produce a breed of chickens with modified beaks, much less a new species of finch. (Neither did the 1977 drought: when the rains returned, the average beak size reverted to normal.)²⁵
25 Arhat Abzhanov, Meredith Protas, B. Rosemary Grant, Peter R. Grant, and Clifford J. Tabin, “Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin’s Finches,” Science 305, 2004, 1462–65. H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, “Oscillating Selection on Darwin’s Finches,” Nature 327, 1987, 511–13. Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 104–05, 176.
You've been taken for a ride.
Get off the Darwin bus.
No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it againThe mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It HappenNo one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.
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!
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.
speciation
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
[ spee-shee-ey-shuh n, -see-ey- ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR speciation ON THESAURUS.COM
noun Biology.
the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.
1. Observed Instances of Speciation
2. Some More Observed Speciation Events
3. CB910: New species
Real Science...Not Religionism
phys.org
Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask.
In a month-long experiment using a virus harmless to humans, biologists working at the University of California San Diego and at Michigan State University documented the evolution of a virus into two incipient species—a process known as speciation that Charles Darwin proposed to explain the branching in the tree of life, where one species splits into two distinct species during evolution.
Biologists watch speciation in a laboratory flask
Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask.
Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask.
In a month-long experiment using a virus harmless to humans, biologists working at the University of California San Diego and at Michigan State University documented the evolution of a virus into two incipient species—a process known as speciation that Charles Darwin proposed to explain the branching in the tree of life, where one species splits into two distinct species during evolution.
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.No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it againThe mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It HappenNo one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.
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!
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.
- Thread starter
- #140
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.No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it againThe mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.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.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????
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!
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.
To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It HappenNo one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.
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!
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.
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.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 97
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 113
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 216
- Views
- 9K
- Replies
- 115
- Views
- 4K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8296
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-