The Biology Term For History

[Indeependent]

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.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

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?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



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.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

Pathogen Evolution - Microbial Evolution and Co-Adaptation - NCBI Bookshelf

A Theory...cool.
Proof? Not.

 

[alang1216]

I really have no clue what your point is. If it is that evolution by random chance is impossible, I agree. If you think that is how evolution operates, you are very much mistaken. I'm saying this now and I'm certain it is what I've said in the past.

evolution by random chance is impossible
I'm glad you agree with reality

If you think that is how evolution operates
That is how evolution "operates"

Maybe birds really did develop wings over 10 million years!

Thank you for confirming that you don't understand how evolution works. I could recommend some books on the subject.

 

[Indeependent]

I really have no clue what your point is. If it is that evolution by random chance is impossible, I agree. If you think that is how evolution operates, you are very much mistaken. I'm saying this now and I'm certain it is what I've said in the past.

evolution by random chance is impossible
I'm glad you agree with reality

If you think that is how evolution operates
That is how evolution "operates"

Maybe birds really did develop wings over 10 million years!

Thank you for confirming that you don't understand how evolution works. I could recommend some books on the subject.

And you understand how evolution works?
What advanced scientific degrees do you possess?

 

[hjmick]

Some folks don't get it, don't understand it, and they never will...

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

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?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



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.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

So, I’m looking for evidence to determine exactly when your cerebrum entered the dead zone, and based on my extensive experience watching CSI, I know that I should check for signs of insect activity: let’s call in the entomologist to pin down the exact moment of pupation!

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Darwinism is certainly elegant and eloquent, and would be an awesome weapon for Leftists/Marxists/Liberals who have a hatred for religion…..

….but the facts prove it utterly false. Useful…..but false.



So, the disreputable…Marxists, Leftists of all stripes….use their control of the schools and the media to defend and support Darwin by simply lying.



Real scientists, those untouched by an attachment to Marxism, give a more objective observation, one that admits that we don’t know how and why there are so very many life forms.

Harry Whittington the renowned paleontologist whose work is critical to documenting the Cambrian explosion said in 1985 “I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time and come down at the base to a single kind of animal…animals may have originated more than once, in different places and at different times.” https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master-public-policy/content/capstones/origins.pdf



And remember, Charles Darwin was not one of the current of liars, spinning tales to support a failed doctrine:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


Why is it essential to claim that Darwin was correct, when the evidence is quite the opposite?

And why the necessity of lying, rather than admitting that no one had a valid explanation for the diversity on earth?

Actually Darwin was wrong about many things and as he got older he tended to backtrack on the things he got right. His fundamental thesis, that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. If you want to be taken seriously in this matter (you are not) you'd engage with some more recent science and stop cherry-picking critical quotes from scientists that actually believe in evolution.

"...that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. "


Any proof?

No?

Any proof that you ever had a cerebrum????

Ever?????

Someday you'll learn the difference between proof and evidence.

"Someday you'll learn the difference between proof and evidence. "


Those first three words will never apply to you.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

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?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



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.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

So, I’m looking for evidence to determine exactly when your cerebrum entered the dead zone, and based on my extensive experience watching CSI, I know that I should check for signs of insect activity: let’s call in the entomologist to pin down the exact moment of pupation!

Don't mess up his concentration...I want to know his scientific credentials other than clicking a Link.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Darwinism is certainly elegant and eloquent, and would be an awesome weapon for Leftists/Marxists/Liberals who have a hatred for religion…..

….but the facts prove it utterly false. Useful…..but false.



So, the disreputable…Marxists, Leftists of all stripes….use their control of the schools and the media to defend and support Darwin by simply lying.



Real scientists, those untouched by an attachment to Marxism, give a more objective observation, one that admits that we don’t know how and why there are so very many life forms.

Harry Whittington the renowned paleontologist whose work is critical to documenting the Cambrian explosion said in 1985 “I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time and come down at the base to a single kind of animal…animals may have originated more than once, in different places and at different times.” https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master-public-policy/content/capstones/origins.pdf



And remember, Charles Darwin was not one of the current of liars, spinning tales to support a failed doctrine:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


Why is it essential to claim that Darwin was correct, when the evidence is quite the opposite?

And why the necessity of lying, rather than admitting that no one had a valid explanation for the diversity on earth?

Actually Darwin was wrong about many things and as he got older he tended to backtrack on the things he got right. His fundamental thesis, that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. If you want to be taken seriously in this matter (you are not) you'd engage with some more recent science and stop cherry-picking critical quotes from scientists that actually believe in evolution.

"His fundamental thesis, that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics ..."



Actually I showed that the fossil evidence disproved that.....and you proved you're incapable of learning.



According to Darwin, who was kind enough to draw it out as his ‘Tree of Life’…


Darwin drew of the Tree of Life, in his notebooks.

Not forgetting also, that: the `Tree of Life’ diagram in On The Origin of Species (1859) is the only diagram or picture in the whole book…(!)


Darwin’s `tree of life’ diagram from the Origin (1859) Ch 4, p 56
StoryAlity#139 – The Evolution of Darwin’s Tree of Life diagram



Here's where we blow Darwinism out of the water!

9. Darwin: descent from a common ancestor, followed by millions of accidental random modifications, showing the biological trials and errors in the fossil record, until, finally, more ‘evolved’ creatures. So, in Darwin’s drawing…the simple common ancestors at the bottom of his tree diagram, lots of new and more complex organisms at the top.



But that’s not the story of the fossil record. In many sites both simple and complex are found in the same historical timeframe…..and in many sites….the more complex, advanced, and ‘evolved’ appear earlier than their supposed ‘common ancestors.’ Differences that Darwin said would appear last….appear first.



Clearly, definitively, dispositively…..Darwin was wrong.

No one has an explanation for this.
Couldn’t schools simply say that? Why not?

A series of random modifications did not produce the advanced forms. Something else did. I can’t prove what the actual mechanism of evolution is, but I can say it isn’t what Darwin claimed.



The only thing government school grads can do is resort to the usual: deny the truth…”is not, issssss noootttt!!!”

Maybe you could find a Tree of Life diagram from this millenia?

"millennia" you dunce.

Try to figure out who drew that tree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Some folks don't get it, don't understand it, and they never will...

Psychics make their living constructing sentences as vague as that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

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?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



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.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

So, I’m looking for evidence to determine exactly when your cerebrum entered the dead zone, and based on my extensive experience watching CSI, I know that I should check for signs of insect activity: let’s call in the entomologist to pin down the exact moment of pupation!

Don't mess up his concentration...I want to know his scientific credentials other than clicking a Link.

You're dealing with a dropout who ran away to join the circus during third grade.

And the circus rejected him.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

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?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



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.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

So, I’m looking for evidence to determine exactly when your cerebrum entered the dead zone, and based on my extensive experience watching CSI, I know that I should check for signs of insect activity: let’s call in the entomologist to pin down the exact moment of pupation!

Don't mess up his concentration...I want to know his scientific credentials other than clicking a Link.

You're dealing with a dropout who ran away to join the circus during third grade.

And the circus rejected him.

Just wait till Fort Fun Indiana chimes in with his Advanced Internet Degree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

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?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



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.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

So, I’m looking for evidence to determine exactly when your cerebrum entered the dead zone, and based on my extensive experience watching CSI, I know that I should check for signs of insect activity: let’s call in the entomologist to pin down the exact moment of pupation!

Don't mess up his concentration...I want to know his scientific credentials other than clicking a Link.

You're dealing with a dropout who ran away to join the circus during third grade.

And the circus rejected him.

Just wait till Fort Fun Indiana chimes in with his Advanced Internet Degree.

There is no way to convince the indoctrinated, such as this one, and the dolt you were interacting with, but the stats are that five to ten times more read threads than post in them.

That's who we need post for.....government school grads who have never heard the truth.

 

[Hollie]

Compare Darwin’s actual writings with current knowledge.



8. Those with a working knowledge of biology will recognize the classifications, kingdom, phylum or division, class, order, family, genus and species. Kingdom is the largest grouping, having an array of organisms. For example, the animal kingdom. At the end of the list, with fewer and fewer organism, and fewer and fewer differences between them, one specific species, as, a human being, Homo sapiens.

According to Darwin, who was kind enough to draw it out as his ‘Tree of Life’…


Darwin drew of the Tree of Life, in his notebooks.

Not forgetting also, that: the `Tree of Life’ diagram in On The Origin of Species (1859) is the only diagram or picture in the whole book…(!)


Darwin’s `tree of life’ diagram from the Origin (1859) Ch 4, p 56
StoryAlity#139 – The Evolution of Darwin’s Tree of Life diagram


A very simple test of logic: if Darwin was correct, wouldn’t we find the simplest, least advanced organism at the bottom of any fossil site? The furthest from the top of the deposit????


Any question??? Any dispute of that statement?

Be careful here, Darwinists......you are about to meet your doom.



This is where you Darwinist’s are hoist by your own petards.

Actually, "Darwinism", (and what you really mean is Darwin's Theory of Evolution), has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, biological evolution is not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put your work before peer review and let's see how you do.

 

[alang1216]

I really have no clue what your point is. If it is that evolution by random chance is impossible, I agree. If you think that is how evolution operates, you are very much mistaken. I'm saying this now and I'm certain it is what I've said in the past.

evolution by random chance is impossible
I'm glad you agree with reality

If you think that is how evolution operates
That is how evolution "operates"

Maybe birds really did develop wings over 10 million years!

Thank you for confirming that you don't understand how evolution works. I could recommend some books on the subject.

And you understand how evolution works?
What advanced scientific degrees do you possess?

Just one.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

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?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

We already had this conversation and you even admitted in one post that your argument sounded stupid.
Remember that one about how a one in a billion chance turned immediately into a one in one chance?
Mathematically, evolution fails miserably.

I don't recall. You sure I didn't say that your argument sounded stupid?

It is you who fails math since evolution is not a one in a billion chance, it is inevitable.

I'm impressed.....no matter how stupid your last post was, you manage to produce one rife with even more stupidity in the next one.

Feel free to point out where I went wrong. If you can.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

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?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



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.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

Oo! A Science writer!
How about the fact that many species have limited habitats depending on humidity and other factors?
Is that like COVID?

Maybe you need to talk to someone who does science for a living? You didn't really explain where critters that only live in a recently available environment came from.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

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?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



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.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

So, I’m looking for evidence to determine exactly when your cerebrum entered the dead zone, and based on my extensive experience watching CSI, I know that I should check for signs of insect activity: let’s call in the entomologist to pin down the exact moment of pupation!

Don't mess up his concentration...I want to know his scientific credentials other than clicking a Link.

Trust me, this is the internet. I certainly would never make up or pad my resume. Lucky for me, I don't need to.

 

[Indeependent]

I really have no clue what your point is. If it is that evolution by random chance is impossible, I agree. If you think that is how evolution operates, you are very much mistaken. I'm saying this now and I'm certain it is what I've said in the past.

evolution by random chance is impossible
I'm glad you agree with reality

If you think that is how evolution operates
That is how evolution "operates"

Maybe birds really did develop wings over 10 million years!

Thank you for confirming that you don't understand how evolution works. I could recommend some books on the subject.

And you understand how evolution works?
What advanced scientific degrees do you possess?

Just one.

Elaborate.
Everyone I've ever discussed this with tells that in order to understand evolution, one must have a background in way more than biology and chemistry,
Elaborate.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

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?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



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.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

Oo! A Science writer!
How about the fact that many species have limited habitats depending on humidity and other factors?
Is that like COVID?

Maybe you need to talk to someone who does science for a living? You didn't really explain where critters that only live in a recently available environment came from.

I only know several hundred scientists in my neighborhood and only the very liberal ones believe in evolution but will never explain it because they always say, "If I have to explain it, you're not smart enough to understand the explanation."
That is typical Liberal talk when it comes to any subject.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

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?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



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.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

So, I’m looking for evidence to determine exactly when your cerebrum entered the dead zone, and based on my extensive experience watching CSI, I know that I should check for signs of insect activity: let’s call in the entomologist to pin down the exact moment of pupation!

Don't mess up his concentration...I want to know his scientific credentials other than clicking a Link.

Trust me, this is the internet. I certainly would never make up or pad my resume. Lucky for me, I don't need to.

In what science is your degree?
Don't be shy.