The Most Famous Fakes In Science

[Hollie]

6. Now….that vertebrate embryo diagram that they showed you in school…..

Years before Darwin published The Origin of Species, German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer designed it to show that the embryos of some vertebrates (animals with backbones) pass through a stage at which they look very much alike. Start simple, and go on to become more complex. One can see why Darwin latched on to it. Known as “von Baer’s law,” though von Baer himself knew of many exceptions to it.
See Arthur Henfrey & Thomas H. Huxley (editors), “Scientific Memoirs: Selected from the Transactions of Foreign Academies of Science and from Foreign Journals: Natural History,” (London, 1853; reprinted 1966 by Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York), 214.



7. This particular version was by German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel to illustrate this distorted view, and Darwin relied on the diagram for his theory. It is still used as perfect evidence of Darwin’s beliefs……even though everyone using it knows it is fake.

“Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology,[32] demonstrated that Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." As well, Gould argued that Haeckel's drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified.[33]

But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."[35] Embryo drawing - Wikipedia



"one of the most famous fakes in biology”….as is Darwinism.



Now....why would real scientists have to lie if their theory could stand up to inspection?

Goofy conspiracy theories aren't helpful.

This is where you cut and paste your spam Berlinski and Dean Kenyon ''quotes'

 

[Taz]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is 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.

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

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


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.

That's hilarious!

Wait, you weren't serious, were you?

So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is 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.

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

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


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.

That's hilarious!

Wait, you weren't serious, were you?

So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.

That's not evolution, but whatever. Believe what you will

 

[PoliticalChic]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is 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.

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

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


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.

That's hilarious!

Wait, you weren't serious, were you?

So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.

You moron......learn the difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution.

That change and any other modifications within a species are micro......and have never....NEVER....been shown to lead to macro, new species.

All humans, with the exception of you, are Homo sapiens.....meaning 'man the wise.'
Clearly wise doesn't apply to you......you dunce.

 

[Hollie]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is 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.

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

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


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.

That's hilarious!

Wait, you weren't serious, were you?

So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.

You moron......learn the difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution.

That change and any other modifications within a species are micro......and have never....NEVER....been shown to lead to macro, new species.

All humans, with the exception of you, are Homo sapiens.....meaning 'man the wise.'
Clearly wise doesn't apply to you......you dunce.

It seems you're still struggling a bit with what creationists call micro and macro evolution. Whether or not creationists want to use the term macroevolution vs speciation, the fact remains: there are many examples of transitional fossils between major groups of biological organisms. Even if you dispute all the interpretations that have been presented, and acknowledging that the fossil record is not perfect, the morphological data show trends are unmistakable.

Of course, if you have data to support the creationist claim that the diversity of life on the planet is the result of a few thousand years of biological history since Noah's pleasure cruise, please present that data.

Here is a description that may help.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
What is macroevolution?
First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.

In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution. Sometimes, macroevolution is called "supraspecific evolution" (Rensch 1959, see Hennig 1966: 223-225).

You moron.

You dunce.

 

[Taz]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is 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.

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

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


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.

That's hilarious!

Wait, you weren't serious, were you?

So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.

That's not evolution, but whatever. Believe what you will

Why is that not evolution? Please explain.

 

[Taz]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is 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.

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

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


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.

That's hilarious!

Wait, you weren't serious, were you?

So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.

You moron......learn the difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution.

That change and any other modifications within a species are micro......and have never....NEVER....been shown to lead to macro, new species.

All humans, with the exception of you, are Homo sapiens.....meaning 'man the wise.'
Clearly wise doesn't apply to you......you dunce.

So you agree that evolution exists. Good for you.

Now go make me some kimchi, just like you make it for Kim.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'

Eat worms all you want.

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.

Science has nothing to do with consensus.

It is based on empirical data.

You didn't know that????

No wonder you were tricked into 'believing' in Darwinism.

Ew, gross! Could you at least close your mouth while chewing those things?
Oh, and flattering me with non sequiturs will get you nowhere.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'

Eat worms all you want.

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.

Science has nothing to do with consensus.

It is based on empirical data.

You didn't know that????

No wonder you were tricked into 'believing' in Darwinism.

Ew, gross! Could you at least close your mouth while chewing those things?
Oh, and flattering me with non sequiturs will get you nowhere.

Is it government school we should thank for how clever you dunces are?

 

[Hollie]

Darwinism has been shown not to be a 'credible theory.'

Eat worms all you want.

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.

Science has nothing to do with consensus.

It is based on empirical data.

You didn't know that????

No wonder you were tricked into 'believing' in Darwinism.

Ew, gross! Could you at least close your mouth while chewing those things?
Oh, and flattering me with non sequiturs will get you nowhere.

Is it government school we should thank for how clever you dunces are?

It is the home skoolurs we should hold responsible for the the social misfits they churn out.

 

[james bond]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is 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.

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

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


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.

That's hilarious!

Wait, you weren't serious, were you?

So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.

You moron......learn the difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution.

That change and any other modifications within a species are micro......and have never....NEVER....been shown to lead to macro, new species.

All humans, with the exception of you, are Homo sapiens.....meaning 'man the wise.'
Clearly wise doesn't apply to you......you dunce.

It seems you're still struggling a bit with what creationists call micro and macro evolution. Whether or not creationists want to use the term macroevolution vs speciation, the fact remains: there are many examples of transitional fossils between major groups of biological organisms. Even if you dispute all the interpretations that have been presented, and acknowledging that the fossil record is not perfect, the morphological data show trends are unmistakable.

Of course, if you have data to support the creationist claim that the diversity of life on the planet is the result of a few thousand years of biological history since Noah's pleasure cruise, please present that data.

Here is a description that may help.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
What is macroevolution?
First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.

In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution. Sometimes, macroevolution is called "supraspecific evolution" (Rensch 1959, see Hennig 1966: 223-225).

You moron.

You dunce.

Ad hominem attacks! It means you lose your argument at the end.

Give us a few examples of macroevolution and explanations per what you copy and pasted and microevolution per what you copy and pasted. Just so we know you understand what you copy and pasted.

 

[james bond]

I'm not sure we will know precisely how life on Earth started. I could be molecular biology or it could be the hand of G-d. But, we shouldn't stop theorizing based on the best available evidence.

Does that make you agnostic?

 

[james bond]

So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.

Is it a secret?

Your leading question has nothing to do with the topic. We are discussing fakes such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.

 

[Mac1958]

So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.

Is it a secret?

Your leading question has nothing to do with the topic. We are discussing fakes such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.

I wasn't expecting an honest answer. I never do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.

Is it a secret?

Your leading question has nothing to do with the topic. We are discussing fakes such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.

I wasn't expecting an honest answer. I never do.

The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.

I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.

Excellent.

 

[Mac1958]

So how did we get here? Political Chic won't tell me. I've asked her before.

Is it a secret?

Your leading question has nothing to do with the topic. We are discussing fakes such as Darwin, evolution, abiogenesis, aliens, long time, flat Earthers, evolutionists, atheists, and the like.

I wasn't expecting an honest answer. I never do.

The only thing dishonest is your attempts to derail the truth.....seems to be your MO.

I recall revealing you to be a liar, and you never got over that adventure.

Excellent.

Keep running. I'm fine with that.

 

[Hollie]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is 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.

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

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


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.

That's hilarious!

Wait, you weren't serious, were you?

So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.

You moron......learn the difference between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution.

That change and any other modifications within a species are micro......and have never....NEVER....been shown to lead to macro, new species.

All humans, with the exception of you, are Homo sapiens.....meaning 'man the wise.'
Clearly wise doesn't apply to you......you dunce.

It seems you're still struggling a bit with what creationists call micro and macro evolution. Whether or not creationists want to use the term macroevolution vs speciation, the fact remains: there are many examples of transitional fossils between major groups of biological organisms. Even if you dispute all the interpretations that have been presented, and acknowledging that the fossil record is not perfect, the morphological data show trends are unmistakable.

Of course, if you have data to support the creationist claim that the diversity of life on the planet is the result of a few thousand years of biological history since Noah's pleasure cruise, please present that data.

Here is a description that may help.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
What is macroevolution?
First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.

In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution. Sometimes, macroevolution is called "supraspecific evolution" (Rensch 1959, see Hennig 1966: 223-225).

You moron.

You dunce.

Ad hominem attacks! It means you lose your argument at the end.

Give us a few examples of macroevolution and explanations per what you copy and pasted and microevolution per what you copy and pasted. Just so we know you understand what you copy and pasted.

I gave you examples.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is 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.

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

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


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

I'll prove evolution to you. Look at houses and clothes from 200 years ado. People were a lot smaller back then, meaning that over time, we're evolving to be taller humans. It's a fact.

That's hilarious!

Wait, you weren't serious, were you?

So what's wrong with that? We're evolving to be taller. Fact.

That's not evolution, but whatever. Believe what you will

Why is that not evolution? Please explain.

I don't know what that is! You have to explain it to me

 

[DustyInfinity]

What if you believed in a scientific principle....and became aware that it is only supported with lies and fabrications.
Would you continue to believe it?
It is....and you do. I'll prove it in this thread.



1.It would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic: the lies that have been perpetrated in government school. Like this...

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution




2. The ’proof’ offered by a number of those fooled is the fossil record, and the mechanism of mutations, both of which have been proven false. Proof can be found here:

The Pretense Called Evolution

and

The Biology Term For History

Both scrupulously documented and supported.



3. The reason this thread should be in Politics, not Science, is because Darwin’s plan, colloquially referred to as evolution, is that it, like the hallmark of politics, is based on lies.
In fact, that alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ What makes advancing it so important?



4. One example is 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.

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

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


And, why is it acceptable, or necessary, to lie to make the point?
But there is an even greater fabrication used to advance Darwinian beliefs....you learned it....and believed it….I’ll get to it…

Okay, you've convinced me.

Now, what is your personal theory on how we got here? Precisely?

Way to go bozo, now you have people swearing apes turned into people just to take jabs at religion. The OP has nothing to do with religion. When facts don't fit narratives, we have politics.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The nuclear arms race was possible because of the works of Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch.

V2 rockets killed thousands of Brits because of the modest experiments of Robert Goddard.

Scientific principles are often used for nefarious purposes. That doesn't make the science any less valid.

Exactly. Matter of fact, that is the reason the Nobel Peace Prize exists. After Nobel had invented dynamite, which was safer and more stable than the nitroglycerin that it replaced, he knew it could be used for war, which is why he started the prize. Mankind has a knack for weaponizing just about anything.