The more I learn...

[Quantum Windbag]

the less I knew.

It seems that Dawkins simple explanation of genetics and evolution, while not wrong, is a lot more simplistic than I thought. We all learned in high school how genes are the basic mechanism of evolution. We were taught that they determine everything from what species we are to the color of our hair.

Ever wonder how all of that fits in with the fact that we are 99% chimpanzee? Why aren't we all 3 foot tall and hairy? Could that idiot from Georgia be right when he says that a pig mated with a chimpanzee a few thousand generations ago, and that was the birth of humans?

It turns out that it is a bit more complicated than that. It seems that a species, or even an individual, can, under the right circumstances, go back into their genetic code and reread the instructions in a way that results in actual physical changes to the individual.

The most common example of this is the locust. Under the right circumstances a grasshopper can, when confronted with the scarcity of food in its neighborhood and/or overcrowding actually undergo a physical change, and behavioral, change. The weirdest part is that they can actually change back to normal after they find a new food source or enough of their neighbors die off.

‘Different groups of animals succeed for different reasons,’ says Wray. ‘Primates, including humans, have succeeded because they’re especially flexible. You could even say flexibility is the essence of being a primate.’ According to Wray, West-Eberhard and many others, this recognition of gene expression’s power requires that we rethink how we view genes and evolution. For a century, the primary account of evolution has emphasised the gene’s role as architect: a gene creates a trait that either proves advantageous or not, and is thus selected for, changing a species for the better, or not. Thus, a genetic blueprint creates traits and drives evolution.
This gene-centric view, as it is known, is the one you learnt in high school. It’s the one you hear or read of in almost every popular account of how genes create traits and drive evolution. It comes from Gregor Mendel and the work he did with peas in the 1860s. Since then, and especially over the past 50 years, this notion has assumed the weight, solidity, and rootedness of an immovable object.
But a number of biologists argue that we need to replace this gene-centric view with one that more heavily emphasises the role of gene expression — that we need to see the gene less as an architect and more as a member of a collaborative remodelling and maintenance crew.

‘We have a more complicated understanding of football than we do genetics and evolution. Nobody thinks just the quarterback wins the game’
​

Why it's time to lay the selfish gene to rest ? David Dobbs ? Aeon

 

[Gracie]

Fascinating reading.

 

[jwoodie]

Gradual (i.e., Darwinian) evolution has been discredited, and its proponents are now scrambling for alternative explanations. Good luck!

 

[Old Rocks]

No, Darwinian evolution has not been discredited. It has been replaced by a much broader base of knowledge. Darwin's achievements in advancing science are not at all diminished by the new findings. That would be like stating that Einstein discredited Newton.

 

[flacaltenn]

No, Darwinian evolution has not been discredited. It has been replaced by a much broader base of knowledge. Darwin's achievements in advancing science are not at all diminished by the new findings. That would be like stating that Einstein discredited Newton.

I believe JWoodie was right.. He qualified that with the term (gradual) Darwinian type evolution..

And that's Darwins' problem.. Darwin had no appreciation of richness of CAUSES of mutations or complexities of gene expression as discussed in the OP.. We've since shown the genesis of a dozen new species of fruit flies produced in 10 days in a jar when exposed to radiation.. Beats waiting on the much slower Darwinian process of copulation and waiting for generations for "competition" to sort it out.

A nice decade of intense stellar radiation, chemical or enviro stressors that "turn on" latent gene characteristics or mangle enough DNA sites --- can produce some mean looking longer fangs and faster legs much faster than Darwin ever imagined..

Could be there are less "missing fossil links" than we think.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, Darwinian evolution has not been discredited. It has been replaced by a much broader base of knowledge. Darwin's achievements in advancing science are not at all diminished by the new findings. That would be like stating that Einstein discredited Newton.

Did you even read the OP? Darwin believed that all evolution is the result of slow, and gradual, changes as one species slowly changes to another. He didn't have a mechanism to explain how these changes were passed from generation to generation, but we eventually came to understand that genes were the foundation of Darwinian evolution. We are just beginning to realize that we were completely wrong about that, and that we haven't even scratched the surface of how evolution works.

 

[Hollie]

Gradual (i.e., Darwinian) evolution has been discredited, and its proponents are now scrambling for alternative explanations. Good luck!

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, other than "because I say so".

Evolution / adaptation in terms of fitness for survival has many, many examples. I'm not aware of any scientific organization that has actually conceded what you claim.

Why not tell us?

 

[flacaltenn]

I just did and QW just did.. Do you not understand how much science has transpired since Darwin or is this a form of denial fou you?

 

[abu afak]

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, other than "because I say so".

Evolution / adaptation in terms of fitness for survival has many, many examples. I'm not aware of any scientific organization that has actually conceded what you claim.

Why not tell us?

I just did and QW just did.. Do you not understand how much science has transpired since Darwin or is this a form of denial fou you?

NO, you did NOT.
English much?

Hollie asked for a credible Back up from a "scientific organization" for 'how you know that'. You FAILED and merely reiterated the [still empty] claim.

A significant ADDITION/Elaboration, Not contradiction/NOT "Discrediting", is Gould et al's, 'punctuated equilibium', which would merely adjust evolution to being significantly faster/slower depending on conditions. For instance, after a Meteor hit the earth and dramatically changed the ecosysytem/climate/extant life, evolution would speed up to match change/Condition

And Gould/most others would gladly tell you/MOCK you for saying that "discredits" Darwin.

I already started a string to that effect as well:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...n-jay-gould-evolution-as-fact-and-theory.html
Excerpt:

",,Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.

Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.
He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.".."

Jwoodie also Polluted that string, and is even emptier than PoliticalChick who at least attempts 'quotes' of scientist in refutation.

And again, you have NOT met Hollie's challenge in any way.
You merely repeated the Empty claim yet again.
`

 

[flacaltenn]

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, other than "because I say so".

Evolution / adaptation in terms of fitness for survival has many, many examples. I'm not aware of any scientific organization that has actually conceded what you claim.

Why not tell us?

I just did and QW just did.. Do you not understand how much science has transpired since Darwin or is this a form of denial fou you?

NO, you did NOT.
English much?

Hollie asked for a credible Back up from a "scientific organization" for 'how you know that'. You FAILED and merely reiterated the [still empty] claim.

A significant ADDITION/Elaboration, Not contradiction/NOT "Discrediting", is Gould et al's, 'punctuated equilibium', which would merely adjust evolution to being significantly faster/slower depending on conditions. For instance, after a Meteor hit the earth and dramatically changed the ecosysytem/climate/extant life, evolution would speed up to match change/Condition

And Gould/most others would gladly tell you/MOCK you for saying that "discredits" Darwin.

I already started a string to that effect as well:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...n-jay-gould-evolution-as-fact-and-theory.html
Excerpt:

",,Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred.

Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.
He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.".."

Jwoodie also Polluted that string, and is even emptier than PoliticalChick who at least attempts 'quotes' of scientist in refutation.

And again, you have NOT met Hollie's challenge in any way.
You merely repeated the Empty claim yet again.
`

You must have mistaken this thread for yet another of your Atheist secular dogma VERSUS Religious dogma threads..

HERE --- we ASSUME that posters understand that science has advanced a couple hundred years since Darwin and don't feel the need to enumerate ALL THE ENLIGHTENMENT that has happened since.

A meteor hitting the earth is an event. Not an evolutionary "mechanism".. The enviro stress from such an event --- would have been interesting to Darwin --- even if he did not understand the biophysical mechanisms of stress induced DNA changes.. We now do..

Or imagine his surprise at being shown a jar full of 20 new species of fruit flies produced in just 10 days.. (You seriously need a link for this kind of thing?)

He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."..

Well here Mr. Darwin are 20 new species in 10 days.. Clearly NOT a process of natural selection.. And if you stick around for another day --- we'll show you a MAN-MADE glowing Cypress tree.... Which clearly indicates the mechanisms for creating "separate" species is not outside the capability of modern science if we desired to do so... Poor Darwin eh? The guy served a purpose.. Time to move on...

So you NEED REMEDIAL science on what we've learned since Darwin? Or you just passing thru on the Crusades?
I find the typical Evolution versus Creation threads to be quite unproductive and the jokers STUCK ON DEFENDING Darwian evolution are just as sad as those with literal interpretations of religious texts.

 

[flacaltenn]

For those demanding some post-Darwinian scientific references. Here's a start...

The Three Big Bangs: Comet Crashes, Exploding Stars, and the Creation of the ... - Philip M. Dauber - Google Books

"The Three Big Bangs"-Dauber and Muller

Generally speaking, however, the molecular machinery that allows organisms to generate variety cannot run fast enough to respond to catastrophic changes in their environment. That is why mass extinctions due to extraterrestrial impacts force us to rethink evolution. An obsessive preoccupation with the question of "fitness" may have distracted scientists from examining the accumulating evidence for mass extinctions. As a result, we know think it likely that they have been misled for more than a hundred years. They have fooled themselves into thinking that the primary driving force of evolution has been competition among individuals and species under ORDINARY circumstances, when in fact the driving force has been another phenomenon entirely.

How Trivial DNA Changes Can Hurt Health: Scientific American

Hey, new stuff on the Science channel last night, from the world of paleoentology. Jack Horner and others at Montana State University (my alma mater) are claiming that dinosaurs are a lot closer to modern birds than anyone would have thunk. Chickens actually do have dinosaur type teeth at one stage of embryo development. Catepillars use the same gene for building a 100 little feet that they later use for putting spots on the butterfly wings.

What this really all means is that there is some type of hidden genetic code that enables as few as 1000 genes to make a human by familiar genes turning off and on at PRECISE times. This also means we don't have to look for our missing link ancestor anymore. By manipulating a human embryo that ancestor would pop out.

This all emplies that evolution is a vastly different process than imagined in recent decades. The older idea that philogeny recapitulates ontogeny is vastly empowered and the evolution of today's species is less a random walk than it is the product of some type of busy, powerful, plan.

Jumping genes helped evolution - Joshua Rampling - Science Alert - RichardDawkins.net

Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.

Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons —also known as jumping genes—have had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.

Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.

“You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate,” he says.

It's silly at this to criticize OR defend Darwin.. Unless you're invested heavily in dominating Creationists.

 

[abu afak]

Not sure how you came to that conclusion, other than "because I say so".
Evolution / adaptation in terms of fitness for survival has many, many examples. I'm not aware of any scientific organization that has actually conceded what you claim.
Why not tell us?

NO, you did NOT.
English much?

Hollie asked for a credible Back up from a "scientific organization" for 'how you know that'. You FAILED and merely reiterated the [still empty] claim.[./b]

A significant ADDITION/Elaboration, Not contradiction/NOT "Discrediting", is Gould et al's, 'punctuated equilibium', which would merely adjust evolution to being significantly faster/slower depending on conditions. For instance, after a Meteor hit the earth and dramatically changed the ecosysytem/climate/extant life, evolution would speed up to match change/Condition

And Gould/most others would gladly tell you/MOCK you for saying that "discredits" Darwin.

I already started a string to that effect as well:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...n-jay-gould-evolution-as-fact-and-theory.html
Excerpt:
Jwoodie also Polluted that string, and is even emptier than PoliticalChick who at least attempts 'quotes' of scientist in refutation.

And again, you have NOT met Hollie's challenge in any way.
You merely repeated the Empty claim yet again.
`

You must have mistaken this thread for yet another of your Atheist secular dogma VERSUS Religious dogma threads..

HERE --- we ASSUME that posters understand that science has advanced a couple hundred years since Darwin and don't feel the need to enumerate ALL THE ENLIGHTENMENT that has happened since.

A meteor hitting the earth is an event. Not an evolutionary "mechanism".. The enviro stress from such an event --- would have been interesting to Darwin --- even if he did not understand the biophysical mechanisms of stress induced DNA changes.. We now do..

Or imagine his surprise at being shown a jar full of 20 new species of fruit flies produced in just 10 days.. (You seriously need a link for this kind of thing?)

He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."..

Well here Mr. Darwin are 20 new species in 10 days.. Clearly NOT a process of natural selection.. And if you stick around for another day --- we'll show you a MAN-MADE glowing Cypress tree.... Which clearly indicates the mechanisms for creating "separate" species is not outside the capability of modern science if we desired to do so... Poor Darwin eh? The guy served a purpose.. Time to move on...
So you NEED REMEDIAL science on what we've learned since Darwin? Or you just passing thru on the Crusades?
I find the typical Evolution versus Creation threads to be quite unproductive and the jokers STUCK ON DEFENDING Darwian evolution are just as sad as those with literal interpretations of religious texts.

1. You remain 100% Wrong and.. I might add.. Lying. An unfortunate position for an ostensibly god/dog-fearing clown.

You did Not/Still have Not met Hollie's Challenge of Naming a "scientific organization" who thinks Darwin is "Discredited". FAIL
As I pointed out, its' only been elaborated on.

2. In fact yours is a Blindingly Stupid Claim.
The fact that we can now Manipulate genes Does NOT mean Darwin was wrong about Evolution/survival of the fittest/Life evolving to it's environment.

3. And why bring up Fruit Fly irradiation?!?!? (IQ-challenged alert)
We had Already Selectively BRED Animals for Decades/Hundreds of years in the past, including well BEFORE before and DURING his lifetime.
So he Already Knew that animals could be Manipulated by us!
That obviously didn't/doesn't "Discredit" him either.

4. You should have spent more time getting a natural history education than getting Indoctrinated with just another of Tens of Thousand of 'gods'/dogs. Because of your religion-based hostility to Darwinism, and Because OF your Stupid DOGMA/DOG-DO, you have a acquired Logic/IQ problem.
ie, the fact that we can now seed clouds and Make it rain doesn't make weather theory wrong Either.

4a. We could also manipulate/change the results of Mendel's work on the odds of offspring appearance, and it still wouldn't "discredit" him either.
But Mendel doesn't contradict your VOODOO Religious beliefs so He is Not a target of you and other Doctrinaire Jesus-Bimbos.
As we all know, Darwin is [Only] a target of otherwise NON-science/NONsense posters because he contradicts/threatens the Genesis Goons, of which you are one.

5. We are All born 'Secular Atheists'. Alas, Some, like you, get Indoctrinated with whoever their parents worshipped/local religion and never get past it/can't think for themselves.
You are a Christian NOT because there was Proof of a Crucified and Risen Christ, but merely because you were born geographically where that's common Legend/Superstition and to parents who Porked your wittle brain with it.
Others were born in Mecca or Delhi (or Tibet) and believe Differently. NONE of you have facts. Religion is mainly about the accident of birth location and is superstition/voluntary group hypnosis.
Science, OTOH, IS Fact-based, not Holy-Book based.
`

 

[Quantum Windbag]

NO, you did NOT.
English much?

Hollie asked for a credible Back up from a "scientific organization" for 'how you know that'. You FAILED and merely reiterated the [still empty] claim.[./b]

A significant ADDITION/Elaboration, Not contradiction/NOT "Discrediting", is Gould et al's, 'punctuated equilibium', which would merely adjust evolution to being significantly faster/slower depending on conditions. For instance, after a Meteor hit the earth and dramatically changed the ecosysytem/climate/extant life, evolution would speed up to match change/Condition

And Gould/most others would gladly tell you/MOCK you for saying that "discredits" Darwin.

I already started a string to that effect as well:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...n-jay-gould-evolution-as-fact-and-theory.html
Excerpt:
Jwoodie also Polluted that string, and is even emptier than PoliticalChick who at least attempts 'quotes' of scientist in refutation.

And again, you have NOT met Hollie's challenge in any way.
You merely repeated the Empty claim yet again.
`

You must have mistaken this thread for yet another of your Atheist secular dogma VERSUS Religious dogma threads..

HERE --- we ASSUME that posters understand that science has advanced a couple hundred years since Darwin and don't feel the need to enumerate ALL THE ENLIGHTENMENT that has happened since.

A meteor hitting the earth is an event. Not an evolutionary "mechanism".. The enviro stress from such an event --- would have been interesting to Darwin --- even if he did not understand the biophysical mechanisms of stress induced DNA changes.. We now do..

Or imagine his surprise at being shown a jar full of 20 new species of fruit flies produced in just 10 days.. (You seriously need a link for this kind of thing?)

He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."..

Well here Mr. Darwin are 20 new species in 10 days.. Clearly NOT a process of natural selection.. And if you stick around for another day --- we'll show you a MAN-MADE glowing Cypress tree.... Which clearly indicates the mechanisms for creating "separate" species is not outside the capability of modern science if we desired to do so... Poor Darwin eh? The guy served a purpose.. Time to move on...
So you NEED REMEDIAL science on what we've learned since Darwin? Or you just passing thru on the Crusades?
I find the typical Evolution versus Creation threads to be quite unproductive and the jokers STUCK ON DEFENDING Darwian evolution are just as sad as those with literal interpretations of religious texts.

1. You remain 100% Wrong and.. I might add.. Lying. An unfortunate position for an ostensibly god/dog-fearing clown.

You did Not/Still have Not met Hollie's Challenge of Naming a "scientific organization" who thinks Darwin is "Discredited". FAIL
As I pointed out, its' only been elaborated on.

2. In fact yours is a Blindingly Stupid Claim.
The fact that we can now Manipulate genes Does NOT mean Darwin was wrong about Evolution/survival of the fittest/Life evolving to it's environment.

3. And why bring up Fruit Fly irradiation?!?!? (IQ-challenged alert)
We had Already Selectively BRED Animals and Crops for Decades/Hundreds of years in the past, including well BEFORE before and DURING his lifetime.
So he Already Knew that animals could be Manipulated by us!
That obviously didn't/doesn't "Discredit" him either.

4. You should have spent more time getting a natural history education than getting Indoctrinated with just another of Tens of Thousand of 'gods'/dogs. Because of your religion-based hostility to Darwinism, and Because OF your Stupid DOGMA/DOG-DO, you have a acquired Logic/IQ problem.
ie, the fact that we can now seed clouds and Make it rain doesn't make weather theory wrong Either.

4a. We could also manipulate/change the results of Mendel's work on the odds of offspring appearance, and it still wouldn't "discredit" him either.
But Mendel doesn't contradict your VOODOO Religious beliefs so He is Not a target of you and other Doctrinaire Jesus-Bimbos.
As we all know, Darwin is [Only] a target of otherwise NON-science/NONsense posters because he contradicts/threatens the Genesis Goons, of which you are one.

5. We are All born 'Secular Atheists'. Alas, Some, like you, get Indoctrinated with whoever their parents worshipped/local religion and never get past it/can't think for themselves.
You are a Christian NOT because there was Proof of a Crucified and Risen Christ, but merely because you were born geographically where that's common Legend/Superstition and to parents who Porked your wittle brain with it.
Others were born in Mecca or Delhi (or Tibet) and believe Differently. NONE of you have facts. Religion is mainly about the accident of birth location and is superstition/voluntary group hypnosis.
Science, OTOH, IS Fact-based, not Holy-Book based.
`

Excuse me, dumb ass, this thread is not about creationism, it is about how simplistic it is to believe that genes are the basic mechanism of evolution. It is wonderful that you are willing to defend Darwin because, even though he wasn't really right, he wasn't exactly wrong. Darwin didn't understand everything we are just beginning to learn today, and would have been completely unable to explain the physical and behavioral changes that result when grasshoppers become locusts, and then change back.

It isn't your fault though, you think we are playing chess when we are actually engaged in a game of Go.

 

[abu afak]

.
Excuse me, dumb ass, this thread is not about creationism, it is about how simplistic it is to believe that genes are the basic mechanism of evolution. It is wonderful that you are willing to defend Darwin because, even though he wasn't really right, he wasn't exactly wrong. Darwin didn't understand everything we are just beginning to learn today, and would have been completely unable to explain the physical and behavioral changes that result when grasshoppers become locusts, and then change back.

It isn't your fault though, you think we are playing chess when we are actually engaged in a game of Go.

You're Not excused Goofball.
You OPed with "Dawkins" who does oft oversimplify for his simpleton audiences: evolution deniers/beginners.

HOWEVER, the debate between FlaGalTeen and I had Moved on to Darwin et al. and Flagalteen Hissef brought "Secular Atheism" into the debate, NOT me.
SO I responded To THOSE points, which I am entitled to do.
In the initial departure, Hollie has asked him to show a "scientific organization" that agreed with his Goofy claim/LIE that Darwin was "Discredited".
He couldn't/didn't and when pushed by me, still could NOT and LIED that he had already. Thus his Link Dumps and HIS frustration at "secular atheists".

Understand now CLOWN?

 

[flacaltenn]

Abu Afak on his Crusade (or is it Jihad) says:::

1. You remain 100% Wrong and.. I might add.. Lying. An unfortunate position for an ostensibly god/dog-fearing clown.
.
.
.
5. We are All born 'Secular Atheists'. Alas, Some, like you, get Indoctrinated with whoever their parents worshipped/local religion and never get past it/can't think for themselves.
You are a Christian NOT because there was Proof of a Crucified and Risen Christ, but merely because you were born geographically where that's common Legend/Superstition and to parents who Porked your wittle brain with it.
Others were born in Mecca or Delhi (or Tibet) and believe Differently. NONE of you have facts. Religion is mainly about the accident of birth location and is superstition/voluntary group hypnosis.
Science, OTOH, IS Fact-based, not Holy-Book based.

You obviously have mistakenly assumed this discussion was another God versus Darwin rematch.. Also you lept into a huge abyss on my religious beliefs. That was humorous to watch, but a little disturbing.. I have little interest whatsoever in anything that doesn't have to do with MODERN views of the BIOLOGY behind evolution.. Or how GAPS in our knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms have been filled.

Darwin never "became discredited".. Just like any ANCIENT scientist that moved the world forward.
But it is now a waste of time and counterproductive to DEFEND Darwian evolution as an IMMUTABLE COMPREHENSIVE theory of evolution.. You seem to LIVE to clash.. Take a break and realize that defending 200 yr old science just MIGHT NOT BE a profitable way to spend your hours on earth..

 

[flacaltenn]

QuantumWind ----

Whatever rock you turned over in this thread to expose these zealots.. Would you please replace it?
I can't handle missionary psychos.. I lead a quiet contemplative life..

Just to piss them off -----

I'll pray for them..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.
Excuse me, dumb ass, this thread is not about creationism, it is about how simplistic it is to believe that genes are the basic mechanism of evolution. It is wonderful that you are willing to defend Darwin because, even though he wasn't really right, he wasn't exactly wrong. Darwin didn't understand everything we are just beginning to learn today, and would have been completely unable to explain the physical and behavioral changes that result when grasshoppers become locusts, and then change back.

It isn't your fault though, you think we are playing chess when we are actually engaged in a game of Go.

You're Not excused Goofball.
You OPed with "Dawkins" who does oft oversimplify for his simpleton audiences: evolution deniers/beginners.

HOWEVER, the debate between FlaGalTeen and I had Moved on to Darwin et al. and Flagalteen Hissef brought "Secular Atheism" into the debate, NOT me.
SO I responded To THOSE points, which I am entitled to do.
In the initial departure, Hollie has asked him to show a "scientific organization" that agreed with his Goofy claim/LIE that Darwin was "Discredited".
He couldn't/didn't and when pushed by me, still could NOT and LIED that he had already. Thus his Link Dumps and HIS frustration at "secular atheists".

Understand now CLOWN?

Back off, asswipe, you aren't smart enough to argue with rdean, much less me.

Flacal never said that Darwin was discredited, and Hollie never challenged him on it. In other words, you have been demanding he answer a question he wasn't asked. Frankly, you are lucky you were dealing with him, I would have smacked you upside the fucking head a long time ago, just like I am now .

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QuantumWind ----

Whatever rock you turned over in this thread to expose these zealots.. Would you please replace it?
I can't handle missionary psychos.. I lead a quiet contemplative life..

Just to piss them off -----

I'll pray for them..

Pretty sure it wasn't me. I thought the thread was going to fly completely under the radar before the fight broke out.

 

[abu afak]

QuantumWind ----

Whatever rock you turned over in this thread to expose these zealots.. Would you please replace it?
I can't handle missionary psychos.. I lead a quiet contemplative life..

Just to piss them off -----

I'll pray for them..

Pretty sure it wasn't me. I thought the thread was going to fly completely under the radar before the fight broke out.

Your OP will stand as permanent tribute to your ignorance.
But I doubt you will ever know enough to even be embarrassed by it.
Sad but true.
Maybe there is a Funny Picture thread for you to post in. It's a big board
`

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QuantumWind ----

Whatever rock you turned over in this thread to expose these zealots.. Would you please replace it?
I can't handle missionary psychos.. I lead a quiet contemplative life..

Just to piss them off -----

I'll pray for them..

Pretty sure it wasn't me. I thought the thread was going to fly completely under the radar before the fight broke out.

Your OP will stand as permanent tribute to your ignorance.
But I doubt you will ever know enough to even be embarrassed by it.
Sad but true.
Maybe there is a Funny Picture thread for you to post in. It's a big board
`

Truly ignorant people think that the problem is not knowing something. The real problem is thinking you have all the answers.

You are part of the real problem.