Science Believers

[PoliticalChic]

Re: I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

You are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution theory, what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence.

"...what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence. "


There is no such evidence.

Stop lying.

EVERY one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of descent from a common ancestor. Can you cite any that don't?

There is no proof of Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

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



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

Re; There is no proof of Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

There is nothing to disprove Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

I realize English may not be your first language so here is a refresher you may have missed in your ivy days:

Proof: establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Evidence Versus Proof

You claimed the fossil record proved Darwin's theory.

Now you say the opposite.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it is a 'fact'....

Fact: known and proven true.

Correct. Evolution itself is a fact. You couldnt stop it if you tried. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution brought us all species from a common ancestor. 6th graders know this. You would literally get laughed out of a 6th grade science class.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If it is a 'fact'....

Fact: known and proven true.

Correct. Evolution itself is a fact. You couldnt stop it if you tried. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution brought us all species from a common ancestor. 6th graders know this. You would literally get laughed out of a 6th grade science class.

Sooo.....provide the proof, you dunce.

 

[alang1216]

You claimed the fossil record proved Darwin's theory.

Now you say the opposite.

Are you referring to post #53 where I wrote:

Re: I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

You are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution theory, what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence.

Well that can't be since that would make you a liar.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sooo.....provide the proof

No, sorry. I am not going to debate the truth of the most robust scientific theory in the history of mankind with an uneducated slob like you. I am only here to mock you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sooo.....provide the proof

No, sorry. I am not going to debate the truth of the most robust scientific theory in the history of mankind with an uneducated slob like you. I am only here to mock you.

You said there was 'proof.'

I called your bluff.

You were lying.

When will you be changing your avi to 'LIAR'???
I don't believe anyone else has taken it yet.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Semblance From Similarities Without Necessity For Direct Descent "

* All Of Darwin No Longer Supported *

It appears you are the first one to bring in extraterrestrials.
The thread simply concludes that there is no proof of Darwin's theory, yet it is presented to the uninformed as "fact."

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.[2]

Missing link (human evolution) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Missing link" is an unscientific term for a transitional fossil.
The term "missing link" has fallen out of favor with biologists because it implies the evolutionary process is a linear phenomenon and that forms originate consecutively in a chain. Instead, last common ancestor is preferred since this does not have the connotation of linear evolution, as evolution is a branching process.

"Missing link" is still a popular term, well recognized by the public and often used in the popular media.[59] It is, however, avoided in the scientific press, as it relates to the concept of the great chain of being and to the notion of simple organisms being primitive versions of complex ones, both of which have been discarded in biology.[5] In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil, like Java Man, is no longer missing. While each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions.[5][60]

The search for a fossil showing transitional traits between apes and humans, however, was fruitless until the young Dutch geologist Eugène Dubois found a skullcap, a molar and a femur on the banks of Solo River, Java in 1891. The find combined a low, ape-like skull roof with a brain estimated at around 1000 cc, midway between that of a chimpanzee and an adult human. The single molar was larger than any modern human tooth, but the femur was long and straight, with a knee angle showing that "Java Man" had walked upright.[56] Given the name Pithecanthropus erectus ("erect ape-man"), it became the first in what is now a long list of human evolution fossils.

Orthogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Proponents of orthogenesis had rejected the theory of natural selection as the organizing mechanism in evolution for a rectilinear model of directed evolution.[5] With the emergence of the modern synthesis, in which genetics was integrated with evolution, orthogenesis and other alternatives to Darwinism were largely abandoned by biologists, but the notion that evolution represents progress is still widely shared.

 

[Hollie]

If it is a 'fact'....

Fact: known and proven true.

Correct. Evolution itself is a fact. You couldnt stop it if you tried. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution brought us all species from a common ancestor. 6th graders know this. You would literally get laughed out of a 6th grade science class.

Sooo.....provide the proof, you dunce.

There are things we “books” and places we call “colleges and universities” where you will find that the Theory of Evolution is among the best supported theories in science.

Your time at the Harun Yahya Academy was wasted.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You said there was 'proof.'

I did? Quote my post.

Oops, nope, you lied again. We can always tell when you are lying: it's whenever you aren't plagiarizing.

And no, i wont be providing a shred of evidence to a moron like you. What a waste of time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You said there was 'proof.'

I did? Quote my post.

Oops, nope, you lied again. We can always tell when you are lying: it's whenever you aren't plagiarizing.

And no, i wont be providing a shred of evidence to a moron like you. What a waste of time.

Your posts: "Evolution itself is a fact. "

Science Believers

Re: I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does. You are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution theory, what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no...

www.usmessageboard.com

Fact:
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
Google.


Next time, remember to take your shoe off before you put your foot in your mouth.



Now.....where is that 'proof'????

 

[PoliticalChic]

The two words in the title are syncretic, meaning that they don’t fit together. Science is about experiment and proof, not about faith and consensus.
But, if you are a government school grad, the inaccuracy of that juxtaposition escapes you, and just like the political religion espoused in indoctrination school, science is no more than a religious dogma.
The concept of 'science' has been altered and weaponized by the Left.



1.The most dynamic religion of the last century is Leftist, and just like Christianity, the religion is aims to replace, it has denominations, such as feminism, and environmentalism…..Robert Bork put it this way: [It] “shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.”

2. And one that consists of ‘science believers,’ a political doctrine only peripherally related to science. An example of such is global warming or evolution, both central to ‘science believers,’ yet neither with any proof. And their champion, perhaps their 'pope,' is the pompous pretender, Bill Nye, ‘the science guy.’

“Who knew, when watching Saturday morning reruns of Bill Nye the Science Guy, that the enthusiastic, bowtied man teaching us about electricity would become the spokesman for saving our planet from certain doom? The out- spoken environmentalist gave an emotional speech at the Washington, DC, March for Science on Saturday.” Peter Wade, “An Impassioned Bill Nye Gave a Rousing Speech at the DC March for Science,” Esquire, April 22, 2017, News and Politics - Breaking News news/a54688/bill-nye-march-for-ence/.ence/.

I suppose a religion can have as many messiahs as it wishes.


The international Left, and their local subsidiary, the Democrat Party, have take technology and made it into propaganda.
“It has moved science from an area of life in which the truth is sought to one in which “truth” is what people with that identity say it is…. liberal causes and liberal-approved champions bathe in such coverage like a mermaid in a hot spring. If you’re on the side of the Left, you’re on the side of the media, and that media will shower you with love …. This sort of fan letter (above) is what happens when liberal activists are granted press credentials.”
Derek Hunter, “Outrage, Inc.”



3. With Bill Nye as case in point, try to see through the pretense, and recognize that Leftism’s ‘scientists’ should be seen as in those commercials…’I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV…”

“It’s frustrating to hear this president speak [about the coronavirus]. He should stop talking. Let the experts speak.” – Joe Biden, March 24.

“The truth is, from this moment on, Americans must ignore lies and start to listen to scientists and other respected professionals in order to protect ourselves and our loved ones.” – Nancy Pelosi, April 14.

Regarding COVID-19, the president should “follow the scientists,” and not just say “whatever suits his ego at the moment.” – Chuck Schumer, May 18



When ‘lockdown’ played into Democrat plans, they could find no end of ‘scientists’ who gave totally different advice from one day to the next. Shouldn't their 'scientists' have a clue about the subject they are called on about which to propound???

"The intolerant ‘Church of Wokeness’ and other commentary

From the right: The Church of Wokeness

Those who “kneel, hands raised in secular prayer, repeating political creeds on the TV news” are participating in the “neo-Marxist appropriation” of Christianity, fumes The Chicago Tribune’s John Kass. In this neo-religion, “whites must atone for the sins of white racism, even if they’re not racist” — a belief antithetical to Christianity. The zealots can’t “allow room for reasoned discourse,” instead proclaiming that “anyone who is silent is guilty” and devouring even those who do “beg forgiveness” for their so-called sins. Watch out: “Coerced fearful kneeling in fealty,” as the new “high priests of the left” demand, is neither democratic and nor virtuous."

The intolerant ‘Church of Wokeness’ and other commentary

From the right: The Church of Wokeness Those who “kneel, hands raised in secular prayer, repeating political creeds on the TV news” are participating in the “neo-Marxist appropriation” of Christian…

nypost.com

 

[LittleNipper]

If it is a 'fact'....

Fact: known and proven true.

Correct. Evolution itself is a fact. You couldnt stop it if you tried. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution brought us all species from a common ancestor. 6th graders know this. You would literally get laughed out of a 6th grade science class.

And the Bible explains that GOD created all the different kinds and then created man. I was taught that evolutionists believe that all species developed from a common ancestor when I was in biology in the 6th grade, but that there was no observable experimentation performed to confirm that belief ---- we were simply expected to believe their assumptions and answer the test and quizzes accordingly. And there were those among us who said, "Well if it ain't true, they couldn't teach us that..." Of course many back then were also drafted and shot at in Vietnam -------- so not everyone bought that such people were actually correct in their logic.

 

[initforme]

The jury is still out on GMOs. Nobody can for sure they are safe, or bad, except Monsanto, who cannot be trusted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If it is a 'fact'....

Fact: known and proven true.

Correct. Evolution itself is a fact. You couldnt stop it if you tried. The Theory of Evolution explains how evolution brought us all species from a common ancestor. 6th graders know this. You would literally get laughed out of a 6th grade science class.

And the Bible explains that GOD created all the different kinds and then created man. I was taught that evolutionists believe that all species developed from a common ancestor when I was in biology in the 6th grade, but that there was no observable experimentation performed to confirm that belief ---- we were simply expected to believe their assumptions and answer the test and quizzes accordingly. And there were those among us who said, "Well if it ain't true, they couldn't teach us that..." Of course many back then were also drafted and shot at in Vietnam -------- so not everyone bought that such people were actually correct in their logic.

And to this day vast numbers of government school grads either fail to ask for the proof of evolution, or simply swear that there is proof.....which there isn't.

And when they are presented with the view that there is no proof of the theory.......why are they afraid to question exactly why it is taught as 'a fact'?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The jury is still out on GMOs. Nobody can for sure they are safe, or bad, except Monsanto, who cannot be trusted.

And that relates to ....what....in the thread?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution itself is a fact.

Correct. Evolution itself is a fact. It is a process. Just like the process of freezing is a fact. You couldn't stop evolution if you tried. Just as abiogenesis is a fact.

The theory of evolution explains how evolution produced all species from a common anvestor.

This is stuff you should have learned in middle school.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The best part if this utterly retarded, embarrassing thread is that this fool is crybabying on her quantum mechanical machine, which relies on electromagnetic theory and relativity to bring her idiotic words to our faces.

 

[LittleNipper]

The best part if this utterly retarded, embarrassing thread is that this fool is crybabying on her quantum mechanical machine, which relies on electromagnetic theory and relativity to bring her idiotic words to our faces.

But the FACT remains that for scientific claims to be valid they must be both observable and repeatable. And while one can fabricate a computer, no one has changed the offspring (even given time and multiple births) of one species into a new unrelated and incomparable new species. And since you believe evolution could somehow account for all the diversity we see around us today, all the labs working in concert should have produced by now one new species that is totally independent from its parentage with all their educated and intellectual trial and error. How can you account for the fact that "mother nature" possesses no intelligence -------- and yet you and those in your camp are convinced the impossible is possible when you yourself cannot quickly accomplish the very same feat intellectually. The corona virus is still a virus ------ nothing more or nothing less.

 

[luchitociencia]

The best part if this utterly retarded, embarrassing thread is that this fool is crybabying on her quantum mechanical machine, which relies on electromagnetic theory and relativity to bring her idiotic words to our faces.

I have been reading your messages for long time, and you have been repeating the same words thousands and thousands of times, And I wonder what else you know to do besides of writing the same brutalities all the time.

On the other hand, the critics against the president were all wrong. The president obtains information from the best sources available, and after that he gives his opinion.

Same as well, in those days -even today- when the origin and total side effects of this virus still are not fully understood, the only information scientists could have gave months ago and even today is also just their opinions.

 

[Hollie]

The best part if this utterly retarded, embarrassing thread is that this fool is crybabying on her quantum mechanical machine, which relies on electromagnetic theory and relativity to bring her idiotic words to our faces.

But the FACT remains that for scientific claims to be valid they must be both observable and repeatable. And while one can fabricate a computer, no one has changed the offspring (even given time and multiple births) of one species into a new unrelated and incomparable new species. And since you believe evolution could somehow account for all the diversity we see around us today, all the labs working in concert should have produced by now one new species that is totally independent from its parentage with all their educated and intellectual trial and error. How can you account for the fact that "mother nature" possesses no intelligence -------- and yet you and those in your camp are convinced the impossible is possible when you yourself cannot quickly accomplish the very same feat intellectually. The corona virus is still a virus ------ nothing more or nothing less.

Your FACTS are little more than creationist babble. The FACT is, speciation is a well documented FACT. I would suggest you review some science literature (outside of creationist websites), for the FACTS.