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.

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

My posts are only for intelligent readers.


Not a requirement, or even an option, for folks like you.

 

[alang1216]

No new species has ever been observed.

Yet you wrote:

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.​

Seems an obvious contradiction to me. Can you explain?

 

[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

My posts are only for intelligent readers.


Not a requirement, or even an option, for folks like you.

Can you point to the intelligent reader who reads your babbles

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Every ‘authority’ such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences who makes this claim, that there are lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt “all living things are modified descendants of a common ancestor,” is lying. They know better.

The two such lines most referred to are biochemistry (mutation), and the fossil record. Item #5 above shows the fallacy of relying on mutations to support Darwinism.



How about the fossil record? This is where we note the title of this thread: the fossil record is history, largely of organism that no longer exist.

Here’s how the fossil record is of value: if it attests to Darwin’s view and prediction, that simple organism would be at the lowest levels of rock formations, and progressively more complex as we reach the top levels….neared the present….then Darwin was correct.



But….it shows the very opposite: time and again, deposits are filled with advanced organism often before…..BEFORE…..the simplest.

" 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)

Entirely new lines simply materialize without the myriad failed changes that Darwin predicted.

Poor, poor Darwin.



Even from Time magazine:

"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world." Extrait de:



Now, why are so many convinced by the Left to accept a proven-false thesis?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

No new species has ever been observed.

Yet you wrote:

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.​

Seems an obvious contradiction to me. Can you explain?

Sure.

The Biology Term For History

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.

 

[Silver Cat]

No new species has ever been observed.

Yet you wrote:

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.​

Seems an obvious contradiction to me. Can you explain?

Sure.

The Biology Term For History

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.

Therefore there is no any doubts that all anti-evolution activists are not real humans, or even biological objects, but just Martian-written computer viruses.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No new species has ever been observed.

Yet you wrote:

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.​

Seems an obvious contradiction to me. Can you explain?

Sure.

The Biology Term For History

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.

Therefore there is no any doubts that all anti-evolution activists are not real humans, or even biological objects, but just Martian-written computer viruses.

There are no 'anti-evolution' activists.

Simply pro-Darwin propaganda activists.

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.


Within a given species.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. Here are two questions with the same answer: why is it necessary to demand credit for having figured out the mechanism that brought forth the diversity of life, when no such revelation has been derived?

And this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:

“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.

And, why is it acceptable to lie to make the point?





This is the truth: the fossil record does not support Darwinism.....it does the very opposite.

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

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



Yet, the most often used high school textbook says this: "....the fossil record....produced different species...."

Clearly, a lie to advance Darwinism.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Actually, new species have been observed.

As this thread is just another thread of your phony cut and paste “quotes”, why not link to “Answers in Genesis”, duct tape your bibles into a double wide and find a street corner where you can yell bible verses at strangers?

 

[Hollie]

7. Here are two questions with the same answer: why is it necessary to demand credit for having figured out the mechanism that brought forth the diversity of life, when no such revelation has been derived?

And this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:

“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.

And, why is it acceptable to lie to make the point?





This is the truth: the fossil record does not support Darwinism.....it does the very opposite.

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

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



Yet, the most often used high school textbook says this: "....the fossil record....produced different species...."

Clearly, a lie to advance Darwinism.

I thought it was comical that you got everything wrong in your frantic cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

Your reference to Henry Gee as editor of the journal Nature is false.

Nature announces new editor-in-chief
Geneticist Magdalena Skipper is first woman to head the 149-year-old journal.

www.nature.com

You realize you’re a complete hack, right?

 

[alang1216]

No new species has ever been observed.

Yet you wrote:

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.​

Seems an obvious contradiction to me. Can you explain?

Sure.

The Biology Term For History

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.

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

So was Hitler.

 

[Moonglow]

7. Here are two questions with the same answer: why is it necessary to demand credit for having figured out the mechanism that brought forth the diversity of life, when no such revelation has been derived?

And this, from the textbook currently used in NYC high schools, and probably throughout the nation:

“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.

And, why is it acceptable to lie to make the point?





This is the truth: the fossil record does not support Darwinism.....it does the very opposite.

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

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



Yet, the most often used high school textbook says this: "....the fossil record....produced different species...."

Clearly, a lie to advance Darwinism.

I thought it was comical that you got everything wrong in your frantic cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

Your reference to Henry Gee as editor of the journal Nature is false.

Nature announces new editor-in-chief
Geneticist Magdalena Skipper is first woman to head the 149-year-old journal.

www.nature.com

You realize you’re a complete hack, right?

She gets caught lying all the time.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

Yes, new species have been observed, especially at the moment they find a species that was not previously known..Being that you are not an American shows in your writing(Inability), which is why you cut-n-paste so much.....At one time you bragged upon having a degree from an Ivy league school what happened?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No new species has ever been observed.

Yet you wrote:

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.​

Seems an obvious contradiction to me. Can you explain?

Sure.

The Biology Term For History

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.

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Yes, new species have been observed, especially at the moment they find a species that was not previously known..Being that you are not an American shows in your writing(Inability), which is why you cut-n-paste so much.....At one time you bragged upon having a degree from an Ivy league school what happened?

Her primary school backs up to the outfield fence at Wrigley Field hence her Ivy League education.

 

[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.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I did yet you always remain silent when confronted with the truth.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

You just had to post more evidence of your poor education, didn't you?

I notice you didn't deny anything in my posts.

Simple one more 'I hate you post' from some dunce I've had to spank in public.


Dismissed.

I don't have to deny pure bullshit. Your entire post is full of inaccuracies and outright lies. Why waste my time?