Voting For Scientific Truth????

[PoliticalChic]

8. What sorts of scientific disagreements with Darwinism do we find in the literature?



"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).


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 Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.


In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies. Gordon R. Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery", p. 48; Michael Pitman, "Adam and Evolution", p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, "Algeny", p. 134



One would hope that some of those exposed to Darwinist propaganda would have the courage to ask why it is so important that an obviously false theory is imposed on students.

 

[alang1216]

Another dolt who doesn't have a clue about the complexity of DNA.

I'd put my gov't school, DNA knowledge against your Ivy League knowledge any time. The flagellum is a prime example of mutations giving rise to new functionality. Kind of destroys your irreducibly complex argument. Please note Orgel’s Second Rule at the end:

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

​

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex​

​

It is a highly complex molecular machine. Protruding from many bacteria are long spiral propellers attached to motors that drive their rotation. The only way the flagellum could have arisen, some claim, is by design.​

​

Each flagellum is made of around 40 different protein components. The proponents of an offshoot of creationism known as intelligent design argue that a flagellum is useless without every single one of these components, so such a structure could not have emerged gradually via mutation and selection. It must have been created instead.​

​

In reality, the term “the bacterial flagellum” is misleading. While much remains to be discovered, we now know there are thousands of different flagella in bacteria, which vary considerably in form and even function.​

​

Different strokes​

The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a “designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.​

​

What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.​

​

It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.​

​

Changing zooms​

It has been proposed that the flagellum originated from a protein export system. Over time, this system might have been adapted to attach a bacterium to a surface by extruding an adhesive filament. An ion-powered pump for expelling substances from the cell might then have mutated to form the basis of a rotary motor. Rotating any asymmetrical filament would propel a cell and give it a huge advantage over non-motile bacteria even before more spiral filaments evolved.​

​

Finally, in some bacteria flagella became linked to an existing system for directing movement in response to the environment. In E. coli, it works by changing flagella rotation from anticlockwise to clockwise and back again, causing a cell to tumble and then head off in a new direction.​

​

Without a time machine it may never be possible to prove that this is how the flagellum evolved. However, what has been discovered so far – that flagella vary greatly and that at least some of the components and proteins of which they are made can carry out other useful functions in the cells – show that they are not “irreducibly complex”.​

​

More generally, the fact that today’s biologists cannot provide a definitive account of how every single structure or organism evolved proves nothing about design versus evolution. Biology is still in its infancy, and even when our understanding of life and its history is far more complete, our ability to reconstruct what happened billions of years ago will still be limited.​

​

Think of a stone archway: hundreds of years after the event, how do you prove how it was built? It might not be possible to prove that the builders used wooden scaffolding to support the arch when it was built, but this does not mean they levitated the stone blocks into place. In such cases Orgel’s Second Rule should be kept in mind: “Evolution is cleverer than you are.”​

 

[alang1216]

8. What sorts of scientific disagreements with Darwinism do we find in the literature?



"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).


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 Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.


In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies. Gordon R. Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery", p. 48; Michael Pitman, "Adam and Evolution", p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, "Algeny", p. 134



One would hope that some of those exposed to Darwinist propaganda would have the courage to ask why it is so important that an obviously false theory is imposed on students.

Alas, you're still making the rookie mistake of confusing the fact of evolution with the theories of how it works. Do any of these scientists you quote NOT believe in evolution? Certainly Gould is a believer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Nothing in the thread relies on theology, but those who have passed through government schooling are unaware of the neo-Marxist influence to which they have been subjected and they love to claim that any disagreement with the Darwinian propaganda is based on religion.
Quite the opposite.
My point is that the greatest part of the debate about Darwin is by those who demand its acceptance as a bulwark against any belief in a Creator, who might have played a role in evolution.

On a number of occassions, neo-Marxist, atheistic scientists, admit that they will say anything as long as it opposes religion.
That's the basis of Marxism.

For example:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
Richard C. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.



Quite a weird take, especially if one tries to call it 'science.'

 

[alang1216]

9. Nothing in the thread relies on theology
[...]
My point is that the greatest part of the debate about Darwin is by those who demand its acceptance as a bulwark against any belief in a Creator, who might have played a role in evolution.
[...]
Quite a weird take, especially if one tries to call it 'science.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. But…..when it suits their purpose, God makes an appearance in their arguments.



Note how evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, a Darwinist, uses God as an argument for Darwin.

“There are many examples, such as the eyes of vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, in which functionally similar features actually differ profoundly in structure. Such differences are expected if structures are modified from features that differ in different ancestors, but are inconsistent with the notion that an omnipotent Creator, who should be able to adhere to an optimal design, provided them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), p. 49


Wait….. what???

God “should be able to stick to as a plan,” .....he's hypothesizing about what He would have done is evidence for Darwin???

Notice….I didn’t bring religion into the discussion, a geneticist and an evolutionary biologist, did.




Nothing new, really.
“On the last page of the first edition, published in November 1859, where Darwin speculated on the origin of the earliest forms of life from which all other species have descended, no reference to “the Creator” is made.” Darwin’s Philosophical Imperative and the Furor Theologicus

 

[alang1216]

10. But…..when it suits their purpose, God makes an appearance in their arguments.



Note how evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, a Darwinist, uses God as an argument for Darwin.

“There are many examples, such as the eyes of vertebrates and cephalopod molluscs, in which functionally similar features actually differ profoundly in structure. Such differences are expected if structures are modified from features that differ in different ancestors, but are inconsistent with the notion that an omnipotent Creator, who should be able to adhere to an optimal design, provided them.” Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), p. 49


Wait….. what???

God “should be able to stick to as a plan,” .....he's hypothesizing about what He would have done is evidence for Darwin???

Notice….I didn’t bring religion into the discussion, a geneticist and an evolutionary biologist, did.




Nothing new, really.
“On the last page of the first edition, published in November 1859, where Darwin speculated on the origin of the earliest forms of life from which all other species have descended, no reference to “the Creator” is made.” Darwin’s Philosophical Imperative and the Furor Theologicus

I think what he is saying is that living creatures show evidence of evolution (descent from a common ancestor) but no evidence of intelligent design. If you look at the eye you find a structure that works but is such a cludge, no intelligence would have come up with such a design if they were starting from scratch.

 

[esalla]

What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.

Chic you are not accomplishing anything here.

Will you ever see this fact?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What better way of determining what is scientifically correct than by a show of hands?

No? But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.



1.Not too long ago, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg testified before the Texas State Board of Education that although he was not a biologist he had “a good sense of how science works.” “Science,” he explained, “is what is generally accepted by scientists,” and he assured the board “it is the theory of evolution through natural selection that has won general scientific acceptance.” Inside Science News Service, “Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution,” American Institute of Physics (2003). Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2003/081.html.

2. Then, there was an association of university professors, releasing this: “The theory of evolution is all but universally accepted in the community of scholars,” and students should be taught “the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding evolution.” At a 2006 pep rally for Darwinism in St. Louis, Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) re-emphasized this overwhelming scientific consensus. American Association of University Professors, “Teaching Evolution,” June 15, 2005. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaup.org/statements/Resolutions/TeachingEvolution.htm. AAAS News, “Science, Teachers and Clergy Strengthen Bonds at AAAS Evolution Event,” February 20, 2006. Available online (June 2006) at: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0220evo.shtml.



3. See the problem? Let’s put it this way: of those physicists, university professors, and science educators…..how many published studies of experiments that studied Darwinian evolution came from this collection of folks?

None. They are entitled to their opinions, on this topic, but why are theirs any more persuasive than those of the plumbers association?



4. We do not gauge the truth of scientific ideas on consensus. The Scientific Method is very clear:
Steps of the Scientific Method
Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...

• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons



5. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.

This nuttery does not belong in the Science section. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. Darwinists attempt to hide their dogma from criticism by repeating that Darwinism is a theory, and not claimed to be a fact. The problem is that every level of schooling offers it as fact, as proven, and when proof is demanded, retreat to ‘we never said it was a fact.’





Of course, all the textbooks call it a fact… 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.

Of course the real fossil record not only does NOT prove Darwin, it does the very opposite.



. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."

"During this [Cambrian] explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.



And texts still reproduce Haeckel’s pictures of vertebrate embryos, to give evidence of how similar they are…even though the diagram has long been known to be a fraud.




Astute individuals should consider who, and why, decided it must be imposed on students as a proven fact.

 

[Hollie]

When you say, erroneously, that there is religion being offered, you are simply proving that you have accepted the methods of government school: ridicule the opposition to silence it.

You should be ashamed.

Ok... Look at all the breeds of dogs we have. The big ones, the little ones... We breed them to look a certain way, with certain attributes. That is nothing more than "artificial Darwinism". It's not natural selection, it's forced selection, but it proves the theory. Things can and will change over time based on genetic advantages/disadvantages.

Damn near every fruit you get in the grocery store is the same way... Bananas, cherries, lemons, they all started out super small... We humans breed them to be bigger, or to taste a certain way.

In actual nature: Birds Evolve Shorter Wings To Escape Traffic Crush

Edit: The only reason I've replied to you is because you are basing this on science, and not religion. I won't argue with your spiritual beliefs. They are yours. Even if I could take them away from you, I wouldn't try. You are trying to argue that you know something about science. So...

1. Are you ready to deny that every quote I provided was by a scientist?


2. You've just proven you are clueless about what Darwin 'proves.'
Phenotypes, any individual characteristics such as those wings, were a given for the species.

For Darwin to be proven....new species must be produced....and this has never happened

. 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 Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.
22. a. Alan H. Linton, a bacteriologist, said in a 2001 article,
"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)
Kreacjonistyczna krytyka ewolucjonizmu
"... there is no evidence for evolution..."



"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies. More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."Berlinski




Now.....where is your comment that this is religion?


You've been tricked, lied to, and fooled.

The real question is why this fraud, Darwinism, is so very important to be put over on the populace.
Figure it out.

Angry religionists do themselves no favors with phony ''quotes'' and references to Disco'tute charlatans.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

As far as I can discern Ian Weinberg resides in South Africa. Since that disqualifies him we have us another major loon on our hands for this entry, namely the infamous John Corrigan “Jonathan” Wells.

Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.

Wells happens to be one of the few Discotute creationist with legitimate credentials, a Ph.D. in biological science, which he completed – according to himself – for the sole purpose of “debunking” evolution. He has not yet succeeded in debunking evolution, of course, but has certainly been caught lying, gish galloping, data mangling, quote-mining, misrepresenting evidence, moving goalposts, and spewing nonsense a respectable number of times. A fantastic example of Wells trying to link Darwinism to Nazism is discussed here.
Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

 

[Hollie]

11. Darwinists attempt to hide their dogma from criticism by repeating that Darwinism is a theory, and not claimed to be a fact. The problem is that every level of schooling offers it as fact, as proven, and when proof is demanded, retreat to ‘we never said it was a fact.’





Of course, all the textbooks call it a fact… 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.

Of course the real fossil record not only does NOT prove Darwin, it does the very opposite.



. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."

"During this [Cambrian] explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.



And texts still reproduce Haeckel’s pictures of vertebrate embryos, to give evidence of how similar they are…even though the diagram has long been known to be a fraud.




Astute individuals should consider who, and why, decided it must be imposed on students as a proven fact.

Why bring another Disco'tute hack into a science thread? Religionism belongs elsewhere.

Meyer is a fraud who received a degree in something called ''philosophy of science''. I'm not quite sure what that is but it's enough to represent charlatans at the Disco'tute.

 

[Hollie]

8. What sorts of scientific disagreements with Darwinism do we find in the literature?



"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).


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 Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.


"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.


In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies. Gordon R. Taylor, "The Great Evolution Mystery", p. 48; Michael Pitman, "Adam and Evolution", p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, "Algeny", p. 134



One would hope that some of those exposed to Darwinist propaganda would have the courage to ask why it is so important that an obviously false theory is imposed on students.

Now that's pretty funny. You're cutting and pasting the same edited, parsed and phony ''quotes'' you dump into various threads.

Your tedious ''Lovtrup'' quote is especially comical as it refutes your failed attempt at argument.

More of your dumping the same “quotes” that were shown to refute your cutting and pasting.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31485065_Darwinism_The_Refutation_of_a_Myth

“... appears that Lovtrup is defending macro-mutations, and he rejects micro-mutations as the sole mechanism of evolution (p261,274). Indeed on p369 we find: "It thus appears that all the objections against the macromutation theory may easily be met, and this is in itself perhaps the
most compelling evidence in its favour“

 

[alang1216]

11. Darwinists attempt to hide their dogma from criticism by repeating that Darwinism is a theory, and not claimed to be a fact. The problem is that every level of schooling offers it as fact, as proven, and when proof is demanded, retreat to ‘we never said it was a fact.’





Of course, all the textbooks call it a fact… 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.

Of course the real fossil record not only does NOT prove Darwin, it does the very opposite.



. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."

"During this [Cambrian] explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.



And texts still reproduce Haeckel’s pictures of vertebrate embryos, to give evidence of how similar they are…even though the diagram has long been known to be a fraud.




Astute individuals should consider who, and why, decided it must be imposed on students as a proven fact.

Don't you ever get tired of recycling this tired, old, 'god of the gaps' argument about the Cambrian explosion?

 

[Hollie]

11. Darwinists attempt to hide their dogma from criticism by repeating that Darwinism is a theory, and not claimed to be a fact. The problem is that every level of schooling offers it as fact, as proven, and when proof is demanded, retreat to ‘we never said it was a fact.’





Of course, all the textbooks call it a fact… 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.

Of course the real fossil record not only does NOT prove Darwin, it does the very opposite.



. Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."

"During this [Cambrian] explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth." Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.



And texts still reproduce Haeckel’s pictures of vertebrate embryos, to give evidence of how similar they are…even though the diagram has long been known to be a fraud.




Astute individuals should consider who, and why, decided it must be imposed on students as a proven fact.

"Astute individuals should consider who, and why, decided it must be imposed on students as a proven fact. "

Astute individuals should consider who, and why, religious extremists want to impose their fears and superstitions as proven fact.

 

[DGS49]

Let's be clear: The reason why Darwin's theory was rejected for decades after its publication was that the existence of "god" was obvious and undeniable. It had been accepted from time immemorial. In fact, the only way to even countenance "Evolution" was to posit an infinite amount of time for it to work its magic.

It was only when the enlightened minds of the early 20th century saw Evolution as a way of denying the existence of "god" that it became fashionable in Academe.

One must never forget the difference between FAITH and SCIENCE. When confronted with a fact that is counter to one's SCIENTIFIC BELIEF, the true scientist explores it scientifically, conducting tests and experiments and further observations to find out whether and why the accepted science is wrong...ultimately either disproving the apparent inconsistency or changing the relevant science to adopt the previously unrecognized reality. This is what happened with the Theory of Relativity.

With FAITH, when confronted with an inconsistency, the BELIEVER either denies its existence, or seeks to understand how the contrary fact fits in with the belief. BELIEVERS have had to go through this process with the knowledge of a 4 Billion year old planet, and its inconsistency with Genesis.

The problem with EVOLUTION is that people with no scientific knowledge or understanding attempt to defend it scientifically, and they make asses of themselves in the process. There are REAL problems with evolution. No living things evolve from simple to complex; the opposite always occurs. And so on. Evolution remains a THEORY that makes it easy to understand different species and how they relate to one another. It is the best scientific explanation of the origin of species. With many holes in it.

 

[Hollie]

9. Nothing in the thread relies on theology, but those who have passed through government schooling are unaware of the neo-Marxist influence to which they have been subjected and they love to claim that any disagreement with the Darwinian propaganda is based on religion.
Quite the opposite.
My point is that the greatest part of the debate about Darwin is by those who demand its acceptance as a bulwark against any belief in a Creator, who might have played a role in evolution.

On a number of occassions, neo-Marxist, atheistic scientists, admit that they will say anything as long as it opposes religion.
That's the basis of Marxism.

For example:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
Richard C. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
Quite a weird take, especially if one tries to call it 'science.'

1. Actually, all your edited, parsed and phony ''quotes'' from religionist / ID'iot creation ministries rely on Christian fundamentalist theology.

2. “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.”

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

 

[sealybobo]

You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.

Ummm... Yes. But I don't see the point is posting it. You have already made up your mind that there is none. So... What would be the point?

This should be in the religion threads... Not scientific.

GOP Climate Change Denial Set The Stage For Trump's Coronavirus Conspiracies

The right has perfected the art of misinformation and science skepticism over the years.

www.huffpost.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

You may be of that same opinion, especially if you are the result of government schooling, but have you sought out experimental proof of Darwinism?
It would be a senseless task.....'cause there is none.

Ummm... Yes. But I don't see the point is posting it. You have already made up your mind that there is none. So... What would be the point?

This should be in the religion threads... Not scientific.

GOP Climate Change Denial Set The Stage For Trump's Coronavirus Conspiracies

The right has perfected the art of misinformation and science skepticism over the years.

www.huffpost.com

And this has what to do with the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support Darwinism?

“Of course, nobody doubts that a large majority of professional biologists accept Darwinism. But appealing to majority opinion is a risky tactic in science, for three reasons. First, history shows that a “scientific consensus” is notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus in 1600 was that the sun revolved around the Earth. The scientific consensus in 1750 was that things burn by giving off phlogiston. Indeed, the scientific consensus in 1900—four decades after The Origin of Species—was that Darwinism was false!



… problem with the “scientific consensus” approach is that once theories are accepted on the basis of majority opinion instead of evidence from nature, they become sociology rather than natural science. As an “overwhelming consensus” of professionals, Darwinism belongs in social studies classes instead of science classes.



So the scientific evidence for Darwinism is underwhelming, and history shows that a scientific consensus is unreliable. Why, then, do so many scientists put their faith in Darwinism?”

 

[ReinyDays]

The argument here seems to be that neither side can fully demonstrate their position ... there's no experiment we can perform to establish the that evolution is true, and we have no experiment that establishes evolution as false ...

It's just a theory ... a framework of understanding that allows biologists to communicate ideas ... and a source of hypotheses to guide our experimentation ...

So the question I have for the OP is what theory would you replace evolution with? ... in science, it's never enough to say someone is wrong, we have to state what is right ... Einstein never just said Newton's gravity was wrong, Einstein said Newton was wrong because GR is right ...

The Big Bang Theory as stated in 1990 has been completely upended ... and a Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to the folks who proved that statement to be wrong ... get that, they proved the Big Bang Theory of 1990 was wrong ...

I think we can all agree that using the Theory of Evolution to establish social policy is wicked ... I watched some bluejays peck to death one of their smaller members the other day, that's a bad example of how humans should be treating one another IMEIO ... the male Red Fox has nothing to do with the raising of the kits, what does our society look like if mothers have to protect their babies from their fathers eating them? ...

And of course my usual disclaimer: Biologists aren't the smartest people in the world, so a third-rate science gets third-rate theories ... I think the OP expects too much of them ...