The Biology Term For History

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

 

[Mac1958]

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”

Ah, so you're a Christian.

 

[candycorn]

The fossils were planted to make Christians look bad.

 

[Sunni Man]

 

[alang1216]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Thanks for the attempt but, I have to admit I'm needy and disappointed. Not surprised, just disappointed. All you have offered is, yet another attack on Darwin without providing any alternative theory.

You wrote: "I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now" and I agree. The question you have failed to address is, if new species have appeared on Earth, what was the mechanism? Was it natural or supernatural?

 

[rightwinger]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Now, Home Skool

Can you explain to the nice people how the Earth is flat?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why is it soooo very important for the failed thesis, Darwinism, to be accepted as ‘fact’???

Here’s why:



4. By definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.

Two of [Stephen Jay] Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science.



Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!



In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.



The new edition of "Science for the People" has been reestablished since 2002 with an endorsement from one of the founders of the original Science for the People — Herb Fox. In its working papers we are told "a few of us decided to start a magazine for Working Scientists active in the Anti-Capitalist Movement, as part of the European Social Forum." Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network

http://www.summit.org/blogs/the-presidents-desk/stephen-jay-gould/




And, Karl Marx himself saw Darwin's project as support for communism.

 

[esalla]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Does posting all that babble that no one will read entirely give meaning and purpose to your life

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Does posting all that babble that no one will read entirely give meaning and purpose to your life

You read it.....and the truth does seem to get under your skin.


Excellent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Does posting all that babble that no one will read entirely give meaning and purpose to your life

You read it.....and the truth does seem to get under your skin.

Excellent.

A reminder: biology can point to many examples of organism that no longer exist, and Leftists believe that Darwin supports their atheism.....

....but Darwin has never been proven, and in fact, has been disproven.

Which leads us to the exploration of the neurosis by folks like you who need to believe that the question of speciation has been answered.
It hasn't been.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. No one who understands biology, or who is not wedded to Marxism, can claim agreement with Darwin’s explanation that accumulated random modifications produce new species.

It has never happened.



Darwin did not know the origin of new variations, but modern Darwinists believe that DNA mutations supply them. Remember, terms like mutation, DNA, and gene were unknown to Darwin….the term gene was first used in 1909, fifty years after Darwin’s publication. What we know about mutations pretty much ends any idea of Darwinism being correct.

“In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
MIT Press Journals



“Alterations in the normal recombination pattern are often associated with errors in chromosome segregation in humans, and these errors are a major cause of spontaneous abortions and congenital birth defects, including mental retardation.”
(Go to “Meiotic Recombination Does Not Occur at Random Throughout the Genome”)
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.
pbio.0050333&ct=1&SESSID=a273f04ca1957b1da05dfd35ba0c418a


Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.



Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

I can provide a very simple explanation as to why Darwinian Evolution based on gene alteration is not possible….if any feel the need to understand same.
Just say the word.

 

[esalla]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Does posting all that babble that no one will read entirely give meaning and purpose to your life

You read it.....and the truth does seem to get under your skin.


Excellent.

No I did not read it, I observed its size and determined that there was no logical reason to read it. No one is going to read all of it ever, you need to accept this

 

[esalla]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Does posting all that babble that no one will read entirely give meaning and purpose to your life

You read it.....and the truth does seem to get under your skin.

Excellent.

A reminder: biology can point to many examples of organism that no longer exist, and Leftists believe that Darwin supports their atheism.....

....but Darwin has never been proven, and in fact, has been disproven.

Which leads us to the exploration of the neurosis by folks like you who need to believe that the question of speciation has been answered.
It hasn't been.

Do you respond to yourself often?

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Does posting all that babble that no one will read entirely give meaning and purpose to your life

You read it.....and the truth does seem to get under your skin.


Excellent.

No I did not read it, I observed its size and determined that there was no logical reason to read it. No one is going to read all of it ever, you need to accept this

You're lying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Does posting all that babble that no one will read entirely give meaning and purpose to your life

You read it.....and the truth does seem to get under your skin.

Excellent.

A reminder: biology can point to many examples of organism that no longer exist, and Leftists believe that Darwin supports their atheism.....

....but Darwin has never been proven, and in fact, has been disproven.

Which leads us to the exploration of the neurosis by folks like you who need to believe that the question of speciation has been answered.
It hasn't been.

Do you respond to yourself often?

I do like dealing with more educated folks.....

 

[anynameyouwish]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Thanks for the attempt but, I have to admit I'm needy and disappointed. Not surprised, just disappointed. All you have offered is, yet another attack on Darwin without providing any alternative theory.

You wrote: "I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now" and I agree. The question you have failed to address is, if new species have appeared on Earth, what was the mechanism? Was it natural or supernatural?

politicalchic is a russian operative

her job is to destroy the USA from the inside

she attacks science because she knows that if americans reject real science we will soon fall far behind russia , technologically speaking, and then they will be able to destroy us in a war.....or just demand that we surrender...

when the russians defeat the USA (with her help) she has been promised governorship of california

and free vodka

and a horde of female prostitutes for her sexual pleasure

and a well endowed horse

 

[alang1216]

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells

Only WITHIN a species....

No new species has ever been observed.

 

[esalla]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Does posting all that babble that no one will read entirely give meaning and purpose to your life

You read it.....and the truth does seem to get under your skin.


Excellent.

No I did not read it, I observed its size and determined that there was no logical reason to read it. No one is going to read all of it ever, you need to accept this

You're lying.

No I am not lying, your problem is you believe that you are a great writer and everyone is required to read your babbles. Lol

 

[esalla]

One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution

As we find in Matthew 7:7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”



So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.



1. I’ve never met anyone whose claim it is that every living thing we see on earth today was always here, just as it is now. I’m gonna believe that most will understand this:

"Anyone who thinks that nature prefers humans and our environment or any species we know and love should consider that 99.9 percent of the billions of species that have lived on earth over the past 3.5 billion years have been dismissed into oblivion."
Kaufman, "No Turning Back," p. 12

Think about how we know that…



2. That’s the history of biology, and a statement that most would agree is ‘evolution.’ Living things come and go, and are known to change within specific limitations.

That’s not Darwinism. Darwin's thesis the explanation for said history.
Darwin’s theory is a very specific set of dictates in an attempt to explain today’s diversity of life…..but none of those dictates has been proven, and most have been disproven.
Which makes intelligent and curious souls question why it is the only ‘explanation’ taught in government school….and why it is taught as fact.



3. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.



The question of why there is any dispute at all is that there are scientists by vocation, but are Marxists by religion, and need to advance atheism for their religion. If not for the influence of Marxism, there would be no conflict over what evolution is, and what it means.
As of this moment......there has never been any proof of the mechanism that Darwin offered.


Never.

Does posting all that babble that no one will read entirely give meaning and purpose to your life

You read it.....and the truth does seem to get under your skin.

Excellent.

A reminder: biology can point to many examples of organism that no longer exist, and Leftists believe that Darwin supports their atheism.....

....but Darwin has never been proven, and in fact, has been disproven.

Which leads us to the exploration of the neurosis by folks like you who need to believe that the question of speciation has been answered.
It hasn't been.

Do you respond to yourself often?

I do like dealing with more educated folks.....

Lol like ding and James bond

Wh!aaaaaassssssssaaaaaaaaaaa