Still Waiting!!

[Hollie]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

1. Yet another thread of edited, parsed and fraudulent cut and paste “quotes” by the Harun Yahya groupie.

2. Remarkable that the Harun Yahya madrassah churns out such types who have no knowledge of the subject they rail against.

3. Origin of Species did not address the beginnings of life. ID’iot creationists don’t take the time to actually understand the subject that they believe crushes their extremist religious beliefs.

4. The theory of evolution is among the most robust and well documented theories in science.

5. It should be pointed out that "Origin of Species" accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a catalog of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (assuming an understanding of the difference between levels of scientific certainty and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as biology, comparative anatomy,selective breeding, geography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the evidence and formed a working theory that evolution (descent with modification) had actually occurred.

6. His evidence was overwhelming. Within little more than a decade after his theory was published, most of the leading biologists of his day were convinced that evolution (descent with modification) was true.

7. Further, Darwin proposed a theory for explaining what we would learn to be fact: "Natural Selection." Contrary to the claim by ID’iot creationists / Flat Earthers that "the gawds did it" by magical means as a way to explain the diversity of life on the planet, (completely unsupported and it assumes the requirement for supernaturalism), Natural Selection makes no such requirement and makes no requirement for coincidence or supermagicalism. Evolution instead defines the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the completely natural mechanism for driving biological change.

 

[PoliticalChic]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

You still don't want to answer the question, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Blues man asked a question. You ducked that question.

Here's the question being asked:
How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????


Stop ducking the question.

How many different ways do I have to tell you that evolution is just a theory?

But you're not telling the truth.



You still don't want to answer the question, huh?

 

[Hollie]

Blues man asked a question. You ducked that question.

Here's the question being asked:
How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????


Stop ducking the question.

“Darwinism” (a slogan and attempt at slur by religious extremists), is not a religion.

Biological evolution is a thoroughly supported science. Consider passing that on during Friday prayers at the Harun Yahya madrassah.

 

[Hollie]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


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

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




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



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

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're trying the same old crap from the last thread.

So I'll ask again

Where in the first excerpt does it say the Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be a fact?

That last bit is from the 19th Century not the 20th as you wrote and you have not shown that those 19th century drawings are part of any widely used text book in the US.

And once again illustrating the principles of any theory that can be observed is not an endorsement of that theory as fact as such an illustration merely points out some of the reasons the theory was postulated in the first place.

And I'll remind you that in the last thread by you on this subject which you have decided to recreate , you agreed that plants have been observed to exhibit speciation which again is part of Darwins theory.

I gave you a link to a study by biologists in Europe that documented observable changes in a single bird species that are directly linked to a change in migration patterns and food availability. The scientists conducting the study believe this is the early stages of speciation for this bird population.

You did not refute that either did you?

So by your "logic" if either of the 2 aforementioned examples of speciation and likely speciation were mentioned in a classroom you would equate that with teaching the theory of evolution as a scientifically verified fact.

And you would be wrong

. Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)



How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Why are you dodging the question?

We aren't talking about well known scientists.

We are talking about your claim that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught in schools as a scientifically verified fact.

I've already stipulated that the theory of evolution is the most widely accepted theory of the development of life on earth just as the big bang is the most widely accepted theory of the origins of the universe but neither have been proven to be fact as of yet for many of the same reasons.

You have said over and over that schools are teaching that the theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact but you have presented not a single excerpt from any widely used public school text of any grade level that actually states unequivocally that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a scientifically proven fact.

And I am not demanding silence. In fact, I am asking you to answer a question but as of yet you have refused to answer it in this thread and the other thread you created on this very subject.

Why are you dodging the question?

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

I'm not

I have already stipulated that evolution is nothing but a theory and that it has not been scientifically proven to be a fact. I have even stated some of the reasons it is not a scientifically proven fact and that it may never be.

So in that one thing I agree with you.

But it is you who have stated multiple times that evolution is being taught in public schools as a scientifically verified fact.

But as yet you have not provided any proof of that statement.

Of course I have.

You choose to ignore the truth.

Harun Yahya has played a cruel joke on you.

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology < Yale University

catalog.yale.edu

The Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (E&EB) offers broad education in the biological sciences, covering subject matter that ranges from molecules, cells, and organs through organisms to communities and ecosystems, and the evolutionary processes that shape them. The department offers a B.A. and a B.S. degree. The B.A. program is intended for students who are interested in ecology, evolution, and organismal diversity as part of a liberal education but do not intend to pursue graduate work in the discipline. The B.S. program is designed for students planning to pursue graduate study in ecology and evolutionary biology, other biological disciplines, or the environmental sciences, or to attend medical or veterinary school. The two programs share the same prerequisites and core requirements but differ in their electives and senior requirements.

 

[esalla]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

So you're going to rehash the other thread you started?

So I'll rehash my question.

Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?

"Where in any widely used public school text book in the US at any grade level does it state Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been scientifically proven to be fact?"


Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


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

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




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



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

How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

This does not answer the question asked.

Here's the question being asked:
How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

No one knows how life arose, not you or I in fact there is no agreement on what the universe is

 

[Blues Man]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

You still don't want to answer the question, huh?

Answer mine first.

And I did answer yours.

I agreed with you that evolution is not a scientifically proven fact

You have not proven it is being taught in public schools as a scientifically proven fact

 

[Blues Man]

Blues man asked a question. You ducked that question.

Here's the question being asked:
How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????


Stop ducking the question.

How many different ways do I have to tell you that evolution is just a theory?

But you're not telling the truth.



You still don't want to answer the question, huh?

So what are you accusing me of lying about?

 

[PoliticalChic]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

They fail miserably! The odds of DNA or RNA forming RANDOMLY

Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth.

From one of the links I posted

In the current study, published in Nature, the researchers simulated the conditions on a primordial rocky Earth with shallow ponds in the lab. They dissolved chemicals that form RNA in water, then dried them out and heated them, then they simulated the early sun’s rays by exposing them to UV radiation.

In this recreation of early Earth geochemistry, intermediates in the synthesis of two of the building blocks of RNA were simultaneously also converted into two of the building blocks of DNA.

"Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth."


False.


Here's your science lesson today.


“The challenge of chemical evolution is to find a way to get some chemical combination to the point where reproduction and selection could get started. The field achieved its greatest success in the early 1950s when Stanley Miller, then a graduate student in the laboratory of Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, obtained small amounts of two amino acids by sending a spark through a mixture of gases thought to simulate the atmosphere of the early earth. Because amino acids are used in building proteins, they are sometimes called the “building blocks of life.” Subsequent experiments based on the Miller-Urey model produced a variety of amino acids and other complex compounds employed in the genetic process, with the result that the more optimistic researchers concluded that the chemicals needed to construct life could have been present in sufficient abundance on the early earth.

...the “prebiotic soup” has become an element of scientific folklore, presented to the public in books and museum exhibits as the known source of early life.

The 1980s have been a period of skeptical reassessment, however, during which specialists called into question each of the four elements in the Oparin-Haldane scenario. Geochemists now report that the atmosphere of the early earth probably was not of the strongly reducing nature required for the Miller-Urey apparatus to give the desired results. Even under ideal and probably unrealistic conditions, the experiments failed to produce some of the necessary chemical components of life."
Johnson, "Darwin On Trial."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Blues man asked a question. You ducked that question.

Here's the question being asked:
How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????


Stop ducking the question.

How many different ways do I have to tell you that evolution is just a theory?

That's not the way it is taught.

It is presented as fact.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Blues man asked a question. You ducked that question.

Here's the question being asked:
How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????


Stop ducking the question.

How many different ways do I have to tell you that evolution is just a theory?

But you're not telling the truth.



You still don't want to answer the question, huh?

So what are you accusing me of lying about?

Lying.

You know it is presented as proven.

 

[PoliticalChic]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

They fail miserably! The odds of DNA or RNA forming RANDOMLY

Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth.

From one of the links I posted

In the current study, published in Nature, the researchers simulated the conditions on a primordial rocky Earth with shallow ponds in the lab. They dissolved chemicals that form RNA in water, then dried them out and heated them, then they simulated the early sun’s rays by exposing them to UV radiation.

In this recreation of early Earth geochemistry, intermediates in the synthesis of two of the building blocks of RNA were simultaneously also converted into two of the building blocks of DNA.

"Perhaps the most discouraging criticism has come from chemists, who have spoiled the prebiotic soup by showing that organic compounds produced on the early earth would be subject to chemical reactions making them unsuitable for constructing life. In all probability, the prebiotic soup could never have existed, and without it there is no reason to believe that the production of small amounts of some amino acids by electrical charge in a reducing atmosphere had anything to do with the origin of life."
Ibid.

 

[Hollie]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

They fail miserably! The odds of DNA or RNA forming RANDOMLY

Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth.

From one of the links I posted

In the current study, published in Nature, the researchers simulated the conditions on a primordial rocky Earth with shallow ponds in the lab. They dissolved chemicals that form RNA in water, then dried them out and heated them, then they simulated the early sun’s rays by exposing them to UV radiation.

In this recreation of early Earth geochemistry, intermediates in the synthesis of two of the building blocks of RNA were simultaneously also converted into two of the building blocks of DNA.

"Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth."


False.


Here's your science lesson today.


“The challenge of chemical evolution is to find a way to get some chemical combination to the point where reproduction and selection could get started. The field achieved its greatest success in the early 1950s when Stanley Miller, then a graduate student in the laboratory of Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, obtained small amounts of two amino acids by sending a spark through a mixture of gases thought to simulate the atmosphere of the early earth. Because amino acids are used in building proteins, they are sometimes called the “building blocks of life.” Subsequent experiments based on the Miller-Urey model produced a variety of amino acids and other complex compounds employed in the genetic process, with the result that the more optimistic researchers concluded that the chemicals needed to construct life could have been present in sufficient abundance on the early earth.

...the “prebiotic soup” has become an element of scientific folklore, presented to the public in books and museum exhibits as the known source of early life.

The 1980s have been a period of skeptical reassessment, however, during which specialists called into question each of the four elements in the Oparin-Haldane scenario. Geochemists now report that the atmosphere of the early earth probably was not of the strongly reducing nature required for the Miller-Urey apparatus to give the desired results. Even under ideal and probably unrealistic conditions, the experiments failed to produce some of the necessary chemical components of life."
Johnson, "Darwin On Trial."

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Near-namesake of the (unfortunately) deceased but intellectually very much comparable Charles K. Johnson, Johnson is a retired Berkeley law professor and must perhaps be considered the very founder of the intelligent design movement (and founded, together with George Gilder, the Discovery Institute). The most important turnaround in Johnson’s career was when he became a born again Christian after divorce. He subsequently, and fully independently, realized that science didn't support the theory of evolution. What a coincidence.


His introduction of “intelligent design” came in his book ”Darwin on Trial”, which since Johnson presented evidence in the form of a mock trial (with legal standards of admissibility of evidence), rejected all scientific evidence in favor of anecdotal evidence – in addition to being (of course) utterly selective in what evidence to present. The point was, essentially, that since the evidence for theory of evolution didn’t provide absolute, logical, irrefutable proof, the theory has to be rejected (no one ever sees that kind of argument from misunderstanding of the role and standards of evidence pop up among climate change denialists, no?). The fact that intelligent design has failed utterly as a scientific theory does not seem to bother him.

Johnson’s vision of the mission of the Intelligent Design PR movement is not limited to evolutionary biology. Rather, the point is that all science lacks a proper theistic basis. Hence every field of science and indeed all public policy should be held hostage to theocratic organization. This is apparently why Johnson calls evolution the 'thin edge of the wedge' with which to 'split the log of materialism open'. This is a good resource on Johnson and his strategy. The idea is not to establish ID through science, but through public policy – hence the Discovery Institute’s focus, not on developing ID, but to get it into school curricula. See also this.

Thus Johnson is known for accepting not only creationism, but the whole full range of woo and crank ideas. He is, for instance, a HIV-denialist as well, having written several articles denying the link between HIV and AIDS.

Johnson has, however, remained relatively quiet the last 10 years after suffering a series of strokes, but he does make the occasional reappearance.

For fun, you can try scoring him on the crackpot index. Ed Brayton provides a brilliant guide here.

This is an interesting take on the whole creationist movement.
Diagnosis: Hyper-crackpot and one of the central founders of the denialist movement. His impact has been huge, but he seems to be semi-retired at present. Still dangerous, however.

 

[Hollie]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

They fail miserably! The odds of DNA or RNA forming RANDOMLY

Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth.

From one of the links I posted

In the current study, published in Nature, the researchers simulated the conditions on a primordial rocky Earth with shallow ponds in the lab. They dissolved chemicals that form RNA in water, then dried them out and heated them, then they simulated the early sun’s rays by exposing them to UV radiation.

In this recreation of early Earth geochemistry, intermediates in the synthesis of two of the building blocks of RNA were simultaneously also converted into two of the building blocks of DNA.

"Perhaps the most discouraging criticism has come from chemists, who have spoiled the prebiotic soup by showing that organic compounds produced on the early earth would be subject to chemical reactions making them unsuitable for constructing life. In all probability, the prebiotic soup could never have existed, and without it there is no reason to believe that the production of small amounts of some amino acids by electrical charge in a reducing atmosphere had anything to do with the origin of life."
Ibid.

“People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

[Hollie]

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

 

[Hollie]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

They fail miserably! The odds of DNA or RNA forming RANDOMLY

Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth.

From one of the links I posted

In the current study, published in Nature, the researchers simulated the conditions on a primordial rocky Earth with shallow ponds in the lab. They dissolved chemicals that form RNA in water, then dried them out and heated them, then they simulated the early sun’s rays by exposing them to UV radiation.

In this recreation of early Earth geochemistry, intermediates in the synthesis of two of the building blocks of RNA were simultaneously also converted into two of the building blocks of DNA.

"Perhaps the most discouraging criticism has come from chemists, who have spoiled the prebiotic soup by showing that organic compounds produced on the early earth would be subject to chemical reactions making them unsuitable for constructing life. In all probability, the prebiotic soup could never have existed, and without it there is no reason to believe that the production of small amounts of some amino acids by electrical charge in a reducing atmosphere had anything to do with the origin of life."
Ibid.

“These mysteries about how we evolved should not distract us from the indisputable fact that we did evolve.”
― Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True

 

[CrusaderFrank]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

They fail miserably! The odds of DNA or RNA forming RANDOMLY

Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth.

From one of the links I posted

In the current study, published in Nature, the researchers simulated the conditions on a primordial rocky Earth with shallow ponds in the lab. They dissolved chemicals that form RNA in water, then dried them out and heated them, then they simulated the early sun’s rays by exposing them to UV radiation.

In this recreation of early Earth geochemistry, intermediates in the synthesis of two of the building blocks of RNA were simultaneously also converted into two of the building blocks of DNA.

"Perhaps the most discouraging criticism has come from chemists, who have spoiled the prebiotic soup by showing that organic compounds produced on the early earth would be subject to chemical reactions making them unsuitable for constructing life. In all probability, the prebiotic soup could never have existed, and without it there is no reason to believe that the production of small amounts of some amino acids by electrical charge in a reducing atmosphere had anything to do with the origin of life."
Ibid.

“These mysteries about how we evolved should not distract us from the indisputable fact that we did evolve.”
― Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True

That's the opposite of science

 

[Hollie]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

They fail miserably! The odds of DNA or RNA forming RANDOMLY

Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth.

From one of the links I posted

In the current study, published in Nature, the researchers simulated the conditions on a primordial rocky Earth with shallow ponds in the lab. They dissolved chemicals that form RNA in water, then dried them out and heated them, then they simulated the early sun’s rays by exposing them to UV radiation.

In this recreation of early Earth geochemistry, intermediates in the synthesis of two of the building blocks of RNA were simultaneously also converted into two of the building blocks of DNA.

"Perhaps the most discouraging criticism has come from chemists, who have spoiled the prebiotic soup by showing that organic compounds produced on the early earth would be subject to chemical reactions making them unsuitable for constructing life. In all probability, the prebiotic soup could never have existed, and without it there is no reason to believe that the production of small amounts of some amino acids by electrical charge in a reducing atmosphere had anything to do with the origin of life."
Ibid.

“These mysteries about how we evolved should not distract us from the indisputable fact that we did evolve.”
― Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True

That's the opposite of science

There’s no dispute in the science community that biological organisms evolve. That’s actual science fact.

 

[Blues Man]

On this date, in the year 1858....


.....over a century and a half ago......Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace offered their theory of how the great number of species that inhabit the earth, came into existence.


"1st July 2018: 160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species to form Varieties"

160th anniversary of the presentation of "On the tendency of Species…

Discover the latest news from The Linnean Society of London.

www.linnean.org

And, while it has proven advantageous to particular political views, when it is applied to science.......the theory has never been proven.

Yet....it is presented in school as proven, a fact.

As B.G. Ranganathan says, in his book ``Origins?’’, "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found."
Also, what about now? Has the evolutionary process stopped just before any observations could be made? If, as the Darwinists say, that continuous evolution is a fact, there should be plenty of examples to point to that are in the stages of transition, now, all around us, as well as proof in the past, in the fossil record. I want to see the half fish/half amphibian example, and, as Ranganathan says, "not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been found."



Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????

Evolution fails on so many levels: How did the first cells "evolve" from the primordial soup? How did bats evolve echolocation? If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? Why haven't alligators evolved thumbs in 250,000,000 years? Why haven't dolphins flown to the Moon?

DNA could have existed long before life itself

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds

www.newscientist.com

How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. New findings could inform...

www.sciencedaily.com

Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both - News and features - Medical Research Council

mrc.ukri.org

While none of the above research is proof of evolution they all raise some interesting questions and possibilities.

They fail miserably! The odds of DNA or RNA forming RANDOMLY

Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth.

From one of the links I posted

In the current study, published in Nature, the researchers simulated the conditions on a primordial rocky Earth with shallow ponds in the lab. They dissolved chemicals that form RNA in water, then dried them out and heated them, then they simulated the early sun’s rays by exposing them to UV radiation.

In this recreation of early Earth geochemistry, intermediates in the synthesis of two of the building blocks of RNA were simultaneously also converted into two of the building blocks of DNA.

"Funny that some scientists have already shown that components of RNA and DNA do form out from compounds that are widely accepted as being present in the seas of prehistoric earth."


False.


Here's your science lesson today.


“The challenge of chemical evolution is to find a way to get some chemical combination to the point where reproduction and selection could get started. The field achieved its greatest success in the early 1950s when Stanley Miller, then a graduate student in the laboratory of Harold Urey at the University of Chicago, obtained small amounts of two amino acids by sending a spark through a mixture of gases thought to simulate the atmosphere of the early earth. Because amino acids are used in building proteins, they are sometimes called the “building blocks of life.” Subsequent experiments based on the Miller-Urey model produced a variety of amino acids and other complex compounds employed in the genetic process, with the result that the more optimistic researchers concluded that the chemicals needed to construct life could have been present in sufficient abundance on the early earth.

...the “prebiotic soup” has become an element of scientific folklore, presented to the public in books and museum exhibits as the known source of early life.

The 1980s have been a period of skeptical reassessment, however, during which specialists called into question each of the four elements in the Oparin-Haldane scenario. Geochemists now report that the atmosphere of the early earth probably was not of the strongly reducing nature required for the Miller-Urey apparatus to give the desired results. Even under ideal and probably unrealistic conditions, the experiments failed to produce some of the necessary chemical components of life."
Johnson, "Darwin On Trial."

It's not false since I actually linked to the articles that explained the research.

So if you want to refute the results of the experiments referenced in the articles I linked to then please do and post the links to the research that refutes the studies mentioned in my links.

You just stating it's not true ain't good enough.

 

[Blues Man]

Blues man asked a question. You ducked that question.

Here's the question being asked:
How about you try to answer the question instead of demanding silence about a topic that clearly hurts you.

Why are so many afraid to question what has become a religion, "Darwinism"?????


Stop ducking the question.

How many different ways do I have to tell you that evolution is just a theory?

That's not the way it is taught.

It is presented as fact.

Then it should be easy for you to find some quote from a text widely used in public schools today that states Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be a fact.

But you haven't done that yet.