Voting For Scientific Truth????

[PoliticalChic]

Religion is literally the dumbing down of society. Anyone who believes the Bible or Koran is a schmuck

Wow!!

I really wounded you, huh?


Excellent.

 

[sealybobo]

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Why you press your agenda of religionism as a burqa for your ignorance is the question at issue.

Thank you, Hollie, I couldn't have said that any better ...

Mine is the pertinent question.

From the OP:
But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.

From Baylor University, one of the premier theological institutions of higher learning:

Statement of Evolution

Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.

Citation ...

You should post your rhetoric in the Philosophy or Religion forums ... here in the Science forum we do tend to follow scientific method ... if you choose to not answer a scientific challenge, then you're WRONG ... every time ...

Nothing in my posts 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.'

I notice that when dunces....you.....can't answer my question, you try to change the subject in this way.





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

You shouldn’t be surprised that Douglas J. Futuyma would question the notion of magical creator gods who are apparently rather incompetent as creators go.

Here. I have a ‘’quote’’ for you. Sometimes an explanation of terms and definitions are helpful for the religious extremists.


A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

I know evolution says we all came from the same ancestor. Originally we were all single cell organisms. BUT, maybe reptiles came from something different than mammals. And insects. Maybe all mammals are related but is it possible tha insects evolved from some other original source?

Im sure science has a lot of reasons why they believe we are all related but it is crazy that some creature split and one relative became mammals and the other one became reptiles. They’re so different.

But I’ll bet you science has enough information to convince me I just don’t know what they say on this even though I watched the cosmos several times both Sagan and Tyson

OK.....I can accept that you are related to insects.

Not just insects. All live. We are all related. Look it up.

 

[sealybobo]

"You have no answer to my question ... you cannot prove evolution is false ... "

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Mine is the pertinent question.

AT Least 3 FALLACIES at work here by DISHONEST Quote-mining loony Political Sheik.

1. She's admitting SHE also can't prove evolution is false. oops.
2. She's wrong. HER/ (any of hundred actually) gods/dogs could appear and explain it all to us, how he kweated evewyting!, but alas all 'he' (LOL) left was a ludicrous POS bible because the men who actually wrote it didn't know anything about science.
3. Many other real things Could have proved evolution false (and still could). BUT as it turns, out, every new relevant science of the last 160 years is either consistent with, or outright helps Confirm Evolution.

You can't debate me you 70 IQ Dishonest Wretch.
`

Her argument is that scientific consensus has been wrong before.

i don’t think evolution is one that religious people will ever debunk. They have zero evidence against it. Any questions we can’t answer neither can they.

And it’s pretty obvious like not wearing masks, denying global warming is just another thing republicans are forced into going along with because they toe the party line on every subject.

Long before corona republicans were denying science so no surprise today they believe republican politicians over the scientific community.

Not my argument.



Tons of real scientists agree that Darwin's theory has been disproven....yet it is taught in schools as fact.


Well-known scientists who dissent from Darwinism, click here: https://www.discovery.org/f/660 . Scientists on this list include Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia; Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley; Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus of Biology, San Francisco State; Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath; Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College; Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München; Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School; Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm; Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology; Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute (2002)

etmcmull - No Evidence for Evolution: Scientists' Research and Darwinism

NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION Scientists' Research and Darwinism Edited by Emerson Thomas McMullen, 2002 Introduction Science has many limitations, but probably its worst shortcoming involves history. For example, if scientists did not know about the Battle of Waterloo, a turning point in history,

sites.google.com

20 pages of scientists... https://www.discovery.org/f/660




Now what do you say?

Pretty funny that you would cut and paste from a collection of ID'iot creationers at the Disco'tute.

Identify any research material submitted by the Disco’tute for peer review.

You can’t because the charlatans there do no research.


The Disco’tute is little more than a repository for hacks and charlatans. Please identify the research papers submitted for peer review by the well-known hacks at the Disco’tute. What reference material published by the Disco’tute hacks are used by any college or university?


Even if we are generous regarding standards and criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the entirety of the ID’iot creationist movement is virtually zero. Rather pathetic, especially considering the long history and funding of the movement. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID’iot creationist research.

As an example of just how fraudulent the Disco’tute really is:

Intelligent design think tank's “institute” is a Shutterstock image

A green screen plus a stock image of a lab equals instant credibility.

Hey, do the one where it looks like you're on the moon next.
Discovery Institute

My father truly believes god put humans here. Poof!

ive laid out enough evidence and fact if he still argues then it’s because he can’t or doesn’t want to understand.

My nephew the other day said he wasn’t sure if he believes in god. All I had to ask him is if he believes in evolution. His father took him to church most sundays his entire life. Glad to see he hasn’t been brainwashed. If he chooses to believe thats on him but at least that’s a new kind of Christian who doesn’t deny evolution, climate change dr. fauci and overall scientific community because his party tells him to.

"Ive laid out enough evidence and fact...."

What evidence?

What 'fact'?

You’re to dumb to understand. Or you don’t want to understand.

"Ive laid out enough evidence and fact...."

What evidence?

What 'fact'?



So there is neither, you're simply one more windbag parroting the orthodoxy.


No shock.

Any evidence given goes in one ear out the other.

When I look at the studies the evidence is overwhelming. They go into great detail explaining why they believe all life on earth is related. They even found a creature 320 million years ago that had feathers, skin and reptile features.

The only reason you play dumb is because of your religion.

"Ive laid out enough evidence and fact...."

What evidence?

What 'fact'?



As always.....Your mouth is writing checks that your intellect can't cash.

You’re a flat earthier. Why waste time trying with you? You’re like one of my least favorite board members

 

[PoliticalChic]

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Why you press your agenda of religionism as a burqa for your ignorance is the question at issue.

Thank you, Hollie, I couldn't have said that any better ...

Mine is the pertinent question.

From the OP:
But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.

From Baylor University, one of the premier theological institutions of higher learning:

Statement of Evolution

Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.

Citation ...

You should post your rhetoric in the Philosophy or Religion forums ... here in the Science forum we do tend to follow scientific method ... if you choose to not answer a scientific challenge, then you're WRONG ... every time ...

Nothing in my posts 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.'

I notice that when dunces....you.....can't answer my question, you try to change the subject in this way.





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

You shouldn’t be surprised that Douglas J. Futuyma would question the notion of magical creator gods who are apparently rather incompetent as creators go.

Here. I have a ‘’quote’’ for you. Sometimes an explanation of terms and definitions are helpful for the religious extremists.


A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

I know evolution says we all came from the same ancestor. Originally we were all single cell organisms. BUT, maybe reptiles came from something different than mammals. And insects. Maybe all mammals are related but is it possible tha insects evolved from some other original source?

Im sure science has a lot of reasons why they believe we are all related but it is crazy that some creature split and one relative became mammals and the other one became reptiles. They’re so different.

But I’ll bet you science has enough information to convince me I just don’t know what they say on this even though I watched the cosmos several times both Sagan and Tyson

OK.....I can accept that you are related to insects.

Not just insects. All live. We are all related. Look it up.

So you were lying when you claimed to have 'evidence' and 'facts' to back up Darwinian evolution???


Glad I called you on it.


Now get lost.

 

[Hollie]

What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards ... (it supports your ignorant opinion) ... science requires repeatable experimentation AND a theory that supports the results of the experiments ...

You've refused to provide the theoretical basis for your claims ...
How about we try and ask you for your experimental basis for your claims? ...

... or are your claims just simply parroting what can be cherry-picked from others? ...

=====

Just curious ... most folks reading this will have had far more schooling than I ... but outside of biology class, I sure don't remember anyone discussing Evolution ... just never seemed to come up in the Neo-Marxism classes I took ... yeah, I absolutely kept my distance from the College of Liberal Arts ... better money in the sciences at the time ...

me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards


No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.


Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.
Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.

TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.

d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.


f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.


Get it????

I am never....NEVER....wrong.

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!

"a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? "

1. Darwin never ''said simple to complex''. This is another fraud perpetrated by the stereotypical religious extremist.

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

3. Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.

4. The Harun Yahya groupies obviously have a need and desire to make themselves the biggest buffoons on the planet.

 

[Hollie]

Religion is literally the dumbing down of society. Anyone who believes the Bible or Koran is a schmuck

Wow!!

I really wounded you, huh?


Excellent.

"Wow!!

I really wounded you, huh?


Excellent.''


It's funny to watch 12 year olds, home alone during summer vacation play on the computer while their parents are at work.

 

[sealybobo]

You haven't earned an answer to the extraneous query.

Why you press your agenda of religionism as a burqa for your ignorance is the question at issue.

Thank you, Hollie, I couldn't have said that any better ...

Mine is the pertinent question.

From the OP:
But….that’s how it was determined that Darwinism is true, ‘proven,’ necessary to be fed to school children.

From Baylor University, one of the premier theological institutions of higher learning:

Statement of Evolution

Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University (Waco, TX) teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science’s statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously.

Citation ...

You should post your rhetoric in the Philosophy or Religion forums ... here in the Science forum we do tend to follow scientific method ... if you choose to not answer a scientific challenge, then you're WRONG ... every time ...

Nothing in my posts 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.'

I notice that when dunces....you.....can't answer my question, you try to change the subject in this way.





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

You shouldn’t be surprised that Douglas J. Futuyma would question the notion of magical creator gods who are apparently rather incompetent as creators go.

Here. I have a ‘’quote’’ for you. Sometimes an explanation of terms and definitions are helpful for the religious extremists.


A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

I know evolution says we all came from the same ancestor. Originally we were all single cell organisms. BUT, maybe reptiles came from something different than mammals. And insects. Maybe all mammals are related but is it possible tha insects evolved from some other original source?

Im sure science has a lot of reasons why they believe we are all related but it is crazy that some creature split and one relative became mammals and the other one became reptiles. They’re so different.

But I’ll bet you science has enough information to convince me I just don’t know what they say on this even though I watched the cosmos several times both Sagan and Tyson

OK.....I can accept that you are related to insects.

Not just insects. All live. We are all related. Look it up.

So you were lying when you claimed to have 'evidence' and 'facts' to back up Darwinian evolution???


Glad I called you on it.


Now get lost.

No I have it, we’ve shown it and you ignored it

 

[Hollie]

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.

1. How ironic. While you pray at the altar of Stephen Meyer and Casey Luskin who shill for the Disco'tute, neither are scientists.

2. Meyer has a degree in something called ''philosophy of science''.

3. Casey Luskin is a lawyer who has taken credit for absurd science articles coming out of the Disco'tute.

4. What I find laughable is that the the Christian creationist tabloids you cut and pasted from are authored by Casey Luskin

#246: Casey Luskin

a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little con...

americanloons.blogspot.com

Casey Luskin, a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism

Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover, and Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).

 

[sealybobo]

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.

1. How ironic. While you pray at the altar of Stephen Meyer and Casey Luskin who shill for the Disco'tute, neither are scientists.

2. Meyer has a degree in something called ''philosophy of science''.

3. Casey Luskin is a lawyer who has taken credit for absurd science articles coming out of the Disco'tute.

4. What I find laughable is that the the Christian creationist tabloids you cut and pasted from are authored by Casey Luskin

Casey Luskin, a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism

Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover, and Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).

Politicalchic looks stupid but then continues to claim victory.

why do they claim there is no evidence? Because there’s no evidence they accept.

It’s like if I’m a kid and don’t like what you’re showing me I cover my ears and close my eyes and say la la la really loud.

Normally I don’t mind but these fools are winning elections

 

[ReinyDays]

They found the remains of a creature 320 million years ago that birds, humans and reptiles are all related to.
First we have to ask if you even believe animals were on this earth 320 million years ago.

Better to ask what birds have in common with cyanobacteria ... here we look at some basic cell functions that are common to most all life ... did something like ADP/ATP energy transport arise independently, or just once in some distant common ancestor? ...

me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards


No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.


Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.
Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.

TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.

d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.


f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.


Get it????

I am never....NEVER....wrong.

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!




This is not the first time I've caught you lying, is it.

What you have done is offered a "counter-example" ... and a fairly retarded one at that ... there are better ... why you're WRONG is that you failed to explain how the Cambrian Explosion fits into your theory of this species radiation ... you haven't even stated your theory ... c'mon now, little girl, don't be such a scardy cat, we promise to only rip you one new butthole ...

a] Citation please ... when and where did Charles Darwin say this? ... just about all contemporary evolutionists would scoff at such a notion ... "complexity" doesn't drive evolution, changing ecosystems do ... if a new niche opens up that would only support a more simple organism, then we will see the opposite of what your ignorance claims ... consider that bacteria had to evolve first, before viruses could, duh, and viruses are so simple as to (perhaps) not even be considered life ...

b] and c] would be true if indeed the Cambrian Explosion did take only two minutes ... but it occurred over 20 million years ... 20 million generations ... we can show speciation in fruit flies in just under 100,000 generations, and insects are an exceptional evolved class of creatures ... they fly !!! ...

We don't know why the Earth's climate changed back then ... but there is a body of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the Earth was ice-bound for close to a billion years before the Cambrian ... I don't suppose you're aware that chemical reaction rates are dependent on temperature ... such that, in ice, evolution occurs very very slowly ... the Earth warmed up and all the ice melted, not surprising that the number of individual organisms exploded ... thus the term Cambrian Explosion ...

Terrestrial life had to wait under there was life on land ... duh ...

d], e] and f] are just deeper into this foolish rabbit hole ... magic mushroom season is still a couple months off and I can't seem to smoke enough pot to deal with your "higher evolution forms" nonsense ... I might not know why trilobites suddenly appear in such diversity, but we do know why cyanobacteria did ...

Again, this is just a counter-example and only proves we haven't solved the entire puzzle yet ... no one claims we have, and research continues ... what you've FAILED to do, and why you are completely WRONG ... is to prove your theory explains the Cambrian Explosion better than evolution ... you're too much of a coward to even state your theory, yea, it really is that bad, and you know it ...

You're in the Science forum ... honey ... your philosophies come across as juvenile and uneducated ... like a small child holding her hands to her ears screaming "I can't hear you" ... until you say what is right, you will be WRONG ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

They found the remains of a creature 320 million years ago that birds, humans and reptiles are all related to.
First we have to ask if you even believe animals were on this earth 320 million years ago.

Better to ask what birds have in common with cyanobacteria ... here we look at some basic cell functions that are common to most all life ... did something like ADP/ATP energy transport arise independently, or just once in some distant common ancestor? ...

me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards


No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.


Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.
Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.

TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.

d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.


f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.


Get it????

I am never....NEVER....wrong.

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!




This is not the first time I've caught you lying, is it.

What you have done is offered a "counter-example" ... and a fairly retarded one at that ... there are better ... why you're WRONG is that you failed to explain how the Cambrian Explosion fits into your theory of this species radiation ... you haven't even stated your theory ... c'mon now, little girl, don't be such a scardy cat, we promise to only rip you one new butthole ...

a] Citation please ... when and where did Charles Darwin say this? ... just about all contemporary evolutionists would scoff at such a notion ... "complexity" doesn't drive evolution, changing ecosystems do ... if a new niche opens up that would only support a more simple organism, then we will see the opposite of what your ignorance claims ... consider that bacteria had to evolve first, before viruses could, duh, and viruses are so simple as to (perhaps) not even be considered life ...

b] and c] would be true if indeed the Cambrian Explosion did take only two minutes ... but it occurred over 20 million years ... 20 million generations ... we can show speciation in fruit flies in just under 100,000 generations, and insects are an exceptional evolved class of creatures ... they fly !!! ...

We don't know why the Earth's climate changed back then ... but there is a body of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the Earth was ice-bound for close to a billion years before the Cambrian ... I don't suppose you're aware that chemical reaction rates are dependent on temperature ... such that, in ice, evolution occurs very very slowly ... the Earth warmed up and all the ice melted, not surprising that the number of individual organisms exploded ... thus the term Cambrian Explosion ...

Terrestrial life had to wait under there was life on land ... duh ...

d], e] and f] are just deeper into this foolish rabbit hole ... magic mushroom season is still a couple months off and I can't seem to smoke enough pot to deal with your "higher evolution forms" nonsense ... I might not know why trilobites suddenly appear in such diversity, but we do know why cyanobacteria did ...

Again, this is just a counter-example and only proves we haven't solved the entire puzzle yet ... no one claims we have, and research continues ... what you've FAILED to do, and why you are completely WRONG ... is to prove your theory explains the Cambrian Explosion better than evolution ... you're too much of a coward to even state your theory, yea, it really is that bad, and you know it ...

You're in the Science forum ... honey ... your philosophies come across as juvenile and uneducated ... like a small child holding her hands to her ears screaming "I can't hear you" ... until you say what is right, you will be WRONG ...

Did you write this?????
The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards ... (it supports your ignorant opinion) ... science requires repeatable experimentation AND a theory that supports the results of the experiments ...



Is any of this 'philosophical'????


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science



b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.





c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.



d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution



Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:

"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."

Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.





f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.



g. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " 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)

h. In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Error - Cookies Turned Off

i. "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.).



j. 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.



Is any of the above 'philosophical' or are you simply a lying low-life????

 

[sealybobo]

They found the remains of a creature 320 million years ago that birds, humans and reptiles are all related to.
First we have to ask if you even believe animals were on this earth 320 million years ago.

Better to ask what birds have in common with cyanobacteria ... here we look at some basic cell functions that are common to most all life ... did something like ADP/ATP energy transport arise independently, or just once in some distant common ancestor? ...

me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards


No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.


Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.
Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.

TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.

d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.


f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.


Get it????

I am never....NEVER....wrong.

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!




This is not the first time I've caught you lying, is it.

What you have done is offered a "counter-example" ... and a fairly retarded one at that ... there are better ... why you're WRONG is that you failed to explain how the Cambrian Explosion fits into your theory of this species radiation ... you haven't even stated your theory ... c'mon now, little girl, don't be such a scardy cat, we promise to only rip you one new butthole ...

a] Citation please ... when and where did Charles Darwin say this? ... just about all contemporary evolutionists would scoff at such a notion ... "complexity" doesn't drive evolution, changing ecosystems do ... if a new niche opens up that would only support a more simple organism, then we will see the opposite of what your ignorance claims ... consider that bacteria had to evolve first, before viruses could, duh, and viruses are so simple as to (perhaps) not even be considered life ...

b] and c] would be true if indeed the Cambrian Explosion did take only two minutes ... but it occurred over 20 million years ... 20 million generations ... we can show speciation in fruit flies in just under 100,000 generations, and insects are an exceptional evolved class of creatures ... they fly !!! ...

We don't know why the Earth's climate changed back then ... but there is a body of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the Earth was ice-bound for close to a billion years before the Cambrian ... I don't suppose you're aware that chemical reaction rates are dependent on temperature ... such that, in ice, evolution occurs very very slowly ... the Earth warmed up and all the ice melted, not surprising that the number of individual organisms exploded ... thus the term Cambrian Explosion ...

Terrestrial life had to wait under there was life on land ... duh ...

d], e] and f] are just deeper into this foolish rabbit hole ... magic mushroom season is still a couple months off and I can't seem to smoke enough pot to deal with your "higher evolution forms" nonsense ... I might not know why trilobites suddenly appear in such diversity, but we do know why cyanobacteria did ...

Again, this is just a counter-example and only proves we haven't solved the entire puzzle yet ... no one claims we have, and research continues ... what you've FAILED to do, and why you are completely WRONG ... is to prove your theory explains the Cambrian Explosion better than evolution ... you're too much of a coward to even state your theory, yea, it really is that bad, and you know it ...

You're in the Science forum ... honey ... your philosophies come across as juvenile and uneducated ... like a small child holding her hands to her ears screaming "I can't hear you" ... until you say what is right, you will be WRONG ...

They found the remains of a creature 320 million years ago that birds, humans and reptiles are all related to.
First we have to ask if you even believe animals were on this earth 320 million years ago.

Better to ask what birds have in common with cyanobacteria ... here we look at some basic cell functions that are common to most all life ... did something like ADP/ATP energy transport arise independently, or just once in some distant common ancestor? ...

me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards


No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.


Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.
Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.

TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.

d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.


f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.


Get it????

I am never....NEVER....wrong.

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!




This is not the first time I've caught you lying, is it.

What you have done is offered a "counter-example" ... and a fairly retarded one at that ... there are better ... why you're WRONG is that you failed to explain how the Cambrian Explosion fits into your theory of this species radiation ... you haven't even stated your theory ... c'mon now, little girl, don't be such a scardy cat, we promise to only rip you one new butthole ...

a] Citation please ... when and where did Charles Darwin say this? ... just about all contemporary evolutionists would scoff at such a notion ... "complexity" doesn't drive evolution, changing ecosystems do ... if a new niche opens up that would only support a more simple organism, then we will see the opposite of what your ignorance claims ... consider that bacteria had to evolve first, before viruses could, duh, and viruses are so simple as to (perhaps) not even be considered life ...

b] and c] would be true if indeed the Cambrian Explosion did take only two minutes ... but it occurred over 20 million years ... 20 million generations ... we can show speciation in fruit flies in just under 100,000 generations, and insects are an exceptional evolved class of creatures ... they fly !!! ...

We don't know why the Earth's climate changed back then ... but there is a body of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the Earth was ice-bound for close to a billion years before the Cambrian ... I don't suppose you're aware that chemical reaction rates are dependent on temperature ... such that, in ice, evolution occurs very very slowly ... the Earth warmed up and all the ice melted, not surprising that the number of individual organisms exploded ... thus the term Cambrian Explosion ...

Terrestrial life had to wait under there was life on land ... duh ...

d], e] and f] are just deeper into this foolish rabbit hole ... magic mushroom season is still a couple months off and I can't seem to smoke enough pot to deal with your "higher evolution forms" nonsense ... I might not know why trilobites suddenly appear in such diversity, but we do know why cyanobacteria did ...

Again, this is just a counter-example and only proves we haven't solved the entire puzzle yet ... no one claims we have, and research continues ... what you've FAILED to do, and why you are completely WRONG ... is to prove your theory explains the Cambrian Explosion better than evolution ... you're too much of a coward to even state your theory, yea, it really is that bad, and you know it ...

You're in the Science forum ... honey ... your philosophies come across as juvenile and uneducated ... like a small child holding her hands to her ears screaming "I can't hear you" ... until you say what is right, you will be WRONG ...

Did you write this?????
The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards ... (it supports your ignorant opinion) ... science requires repeatable experimentation AND a theory that supports the results of the experiments ...



Is any of this 'philosophical'????


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science



b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.





c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.



d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution



Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:

"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."

Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.





f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.



g. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " 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)

h. In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Error - Cookies Turned Off

i. "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.).



j. 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.



Is any of the above 'philosophical' or are you simply a lying low-life????

He just gave you tons of evidence. You seem to be stuck on what we don’t know and refuse to acknowledge what we do know.

 

[sealybobo]

They found the remains of a creature 320 million years ago that birds, humans and reptiles are all related to.
First we have to ask if you even believe animals were on this earth 320 million years ago.

Better to ask what birds have in common with cyanobacteria ... here we look at some basic cell functions that are common to most all life ... did something like ADP/ATP energy transport arise independently, or just once in some distant common ancestor? ...

me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards


No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.


Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.
Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.

TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.

d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.


f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.


Get it????

I am never....NEVER....wrong.

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!




This is not the first time I've caught you lying, is it.

What you have done is offered a "counter-example" ... and a fairly retarded one at that ... there are better ... why you're WRONG is that you failed to explain how the Cambrian Explosion fits into your theory of this species radiation ... you haven't even stated your theory ... c'mon now, little girl, don't be such a scardy cat, we promise to only rip you one new butthole ...

a] Citation please ... when and where did Charles Darwin say this? ... just about all contemporary evolutionists would scoff at such a notion ... "complexity" doesn't drive evolution, changing ecosystems do ... if a new niche opens up that would only support a more simple organism, then we will see the opposite of what your ignorance claims ... consider that bacteria had to evolve first, before viruses could, duh, and viruses are so simple as to (perhaps) not even be considered life ...

b] and c] would be true if indeed the Cambrian Explosion did take only two minutes ... but it occurred over 20 million years ... 20 million generations ... we can show speciation in fruit flies in just under 100,000 generations, and insects are an exceptional evolved class of creatures ... they fly !!! ...

We don't know why the Earth's climate changed back then ... but there is a body of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the Earth was ice-bound for close to a billion years before the Cambrian ... I don't suppose you're aware that chemical reaction rates are dependent on temperature ... such that, in ice, evolution occurs very very slowly ... the Earth warmed up and all the ice melted, not surprising that the number of individual organisms exploded ... thus the term Cambrian Explosion ...

Terrestrial life had to wait under there was life on land ... duh ...

d], e] and f] are just deeper into this foolish rabbit hole ... magic mushroom season is still a couple months off and I can't seem to smoke enough pot to deal with your "higher evolution forms" nonsense ... I might not know why trilobites suddenly appear in such diversity, but we do know why cyanobacteria did ...

Again, this is just a counter-example and only proves we haven't solved the entire puzzle yet ... no one claims we have, and research continues ... what you've FAILED to do, and why you are completely WRONG ... is to prove your theory explains the Cambrian Explosion better than evolution ... you're too much of a coward to even state your theory, yea, it really is that bad, and you know it ...

You're in the Science forum ... honey ... your philosophies come across as juvenile and uneducated ... like a small child holding her hands to her ears screaming "I can't hear you" ... until you say what is right, you will be WRONG ...

Did you write this?????
The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards ... (it supports your ignorant opinion) ... science requires repeatable experimentation AND a theory that supports the results of the experiments ...



Is any of this 'philosophical'????


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science



b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.





c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.



d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution



Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:

"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."

Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.





f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.



g. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " 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)

h. In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Error - Cookies Turned Off

i. "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.).



j. 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.



Is any of the above 'philosophical' or are you simply a lying low-life????

So your theory is god created the land animals in a day?

 

[Hollie]

They found the remains of a creature 320 million years ago that birds, humans and reptiles are all related to.
First we have to ask if you even believe animals were on this earth 320 million years ago.

Better to ask what birds have in common with cyanobacteria ... here we look at some basic cell functions that are common to most all life ... did something like ADP/ATP energy transport arise independently, or just once in some distant common ancestor? ...

me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards


No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.


Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.
Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.

TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.

d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.


f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.


Get it????

I am never....NEVER....wrong.

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!




This is not the first time I've caught you lying, is it.

What you have done is offered a "counter-example" ... and a fairly retarded one at that ... there are better ... why you're WRONG is that you failed to explain how the Cambrian Explosion fits into your theory of this species radiation ... you haven't even stated your theory ... c'mon now, little girl, don't be such a scardy cat, we promise to only rip you one new butthole ...

a] Citation please ... when and where did Charles Darwin say this? ... just about all contemporary evolutionists would scoff at such a notion ... "complexity" doesn't drive evolution, changing ecosystems do ... if a new niche opens up that would only support a more simple organism, then we will see the opposite of what your ignorance claims ... consider that bacteria had to evolve first, before viruses could, duh, and viruses are so simple as to (perhaps) not even be considered life ...

b] and c] would be true if indeed the Cambrian Explosion did take only two minutes ... but it occurred over 20 million years ... 20 million generations ... we can show speciation in fruit flies in just under 100,000 generations, and insects are an exceptional evolved class of creatures ... they fly !!! ...

We don't know why the Earth's climate changed back then ... but there is a body of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the Earth was ice-bound for close to a billion years before the Cambrian ... I don't suppose you're aware that chemical reaction rates are dependent on temperature ... such that, in ice, evolution occurs very very slowly ... the Earth warmed up and all the ice melted, not surprising that the number of individual organisms exploded ... thus the term Cambrian Explosion ...

Terrestrial life had to wait under there was life on land ... duh ...

d], e] and f] are just deeper into this foolish rabbit hole ... magic mushroom season is still a couple months off and I can't seem to smoke enough pot to deal with your "higher evolution forms" nonsense ... I might not know why trilobites suddenly appear in such diversity, but we do know why cyanobacteria did ...

Again, this is just a counter-example and only proves we haven't solved the entire puzzle yet ... no one claims we have, and research continues ... what you've FAILED to do, and why you are completely WRONG ... is to prove your theory explains the Cambrian Explosion better than evolution ... you're too much of a coward to even state your theory, yea, it really is that bad, and you know it ...

You're in the Science forum ... honey ... your philosophies come across as juvenile and uneducated ... like a small child holding her hands to her ears screaming "I can't hear you" ... until you say what is right, you will be WRONG ...

Did you write this?????
The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards ... (it supports your ignorant opinion) ... science requires repeatable experimentation AND a theory that supports the results of the experiments ...



Is any of this 'philosophical'????


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science



b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.





c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.



d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution



Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:

"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."

Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.





f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.



g. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " 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)

h. In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Error - Cookies Turned Off

i. "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.).



j. 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.



Is any of the above 'philosophical' or are you simply a lying low-life????

Cutting and pasting the same discredited nonsense multiple times makes you appear quite desperate.

 

[Hollie]

They found the remains of a creature 320 million years ago that birds, humans and reptiles are all related to.
First we have to ask if you even believe animals were on this earth 320 million years ago.

Better to ask what birds have in common with cyanobacteria ... here we look at some basic cell functions that are common to most all life ... did something like ADP/ATP energy transport arise independently, or just once in some distant common ancestor? ...

me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards


No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.


Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.
Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.

TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.

d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.


f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.


Get it????

I am never....NEVER....wrong.

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!




This is not the first time I've caught you lying, is it.

What you have done is offered a "counter-example" ... and a fairly retarded one at that ... there are better ... why you're WRONG is that you failed to explain how the Cambrian Explosion fits into your theory of this species radiation ... you haven't even stated your theory ... c'mon now, little girl, don't be such a scardy cat, we promise to only rip you one new butthole ...

a] Citation please ... when and where did Charles Darwin say this? ... just about all contemporary evolutionists would scoff at such a notion ... "complexity" doesn't drive evolution, changing ecosystems do ... if a new niche opens up that would only support a more simple organism, then we will see the opposite of what your ignorance claims ... consider that bacteria had to evolve first, before viruses could, duh, and viruses are so simple as to (perhaps) not even be considered life ...

b] and c] would be true if indeed the Cambrian Explosion did take only two minutes ... but it occurred over 20 million years ... 20 million generations ... we can show speciation in fruit flies in just under 100,000 generations, and insects are an exceptional evolved class of creatures ... they fly !!! ...

We don't know why the Earth's climate changed back then ... but there is a body of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the Earth was ice-bound for close to a billion years before the Cambrian ... I don't suppose you're aware that chemical reaction rates are dependent on temperature ... such that, in ice, evolution occurs very very slowly ... the Earth warmed up and all the ice melted, not surprising that the number of individual organisms exploded ... thus the term Cambrian Explosion ...

Terrestrial life had to wait under there was life on land ... duh ...

d], e] and f] are just deeper into this foolish rabbit hole ... magic mushroom season is still a couple months off and I can't seem to smoke enough pot to deal with your "higher evolution forms" nonsense ... I might not know why trilobites suddenly appear in such diversity, but we do know why cyanobacteria did ...

Again, this is just a counter-example and only proves we haven't solved the entire puzzle yet ... no one claims we have, and research continues ... what you've FAILED to do, and why you are completely WRONG ... is to prove your theory explains the Cambrian Explosion better than evolution ... you're too much of a coward to even state your theory, yea, it really is that bad, and you know it ...

You're in the Science forum ... honey ... your philosophies come across as juvenile and uneducated ... like a small child holding her hands to her ears screaming "I can't hear you" ... until you say what is right, you will be WRONG ...

Did you write this?????
The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards ... (it supports your ignorant opinion) ... science requires repeatable experimentation AND a theory that supports the results of the experiments ...



Is any of this 'philosophical'????


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science



b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.





c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.



d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution



Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:

"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."

Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.





f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.



g. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " 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)

h. In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Error - Cookies Turned Off

i. "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.).



j. 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.



Is any of the above 'philosophical' or are you simply a lying low-life????

1. It's comical that you're left to cut and paste ''quotes'' from Stephen Meyer at the Disco'tute.

2. You didn't know that Meyer is not a scientist?

3. You didn't know that the Disco'tute is a fraud?

 

[Hollie]

They found the remains of a creature 320 million years ago that birds, humans and reptiles are all related to.
First we have to ask if you even believe animals were on this earth 320 million years ago.

Better to ask what birds have in common with cyanobacteria ... here we look at some basic cell functions that are common to most all life ... did something like ADP/ATP energy transport arise independently, or just once in some distant common ancestor? ...

me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards


No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.


Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.
Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.

TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.

d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.


f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.


Get it????

I am never....NEVER....wrong.

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!




This is not the first time I've caught you lying, is it.

What you have done is offered a "counter-example" ... and a fairly retarded one at that ... there are better ... why you're WRONG is that you failed to explain how the Cambrian Explosion fits into your theory of this species radiation ... you haven't even stated your theory ... c'mon now, little girl, don't be such a scardy cat, we promise to only rip you one new butthole ...

a] Citation please ... when and where did Charles Darwin say this? ... just about all contemporary evolutionists would scoff at such a notion ... "complexity" doesn't drive evolution, changing ecosystems do ... if a new niche opens up that would only support a more simple organism, then we will see the opposite of what your ignorance claims ... consider that bacteria had to evolve first, before viruses could, duh, and viruses are so simple as to (perhaps) not even be considered life ...

b] and c] would be true if indeed the Cambrian Explosion did take only two minutes ... but it occurred over 20 million years ... 20 million generations ... we can show speciation in fruit flies in just under 100,000 generations, and insects are an exceptional evolved class of creatures ... they fly !!! ...

We don't know why the Earth's climate changed back then ... but there is a body of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the Earth was ice-bound for close to a billion years before the Cambrian ... I don't suppose you're aware that chemical reaction rates are dependent on temperature ... such that, in ice, evolution occurs very very slowly ... the Earth warmed up and all the ice melted, not surprising that the number of individual organisms exploded ... thus the term Cambrian Explosion ...

Terrestrial life had to wait under there was life on land ... duh ...

d], e] and f] are just deeper into this foolish rabbit hole ... magic mushroom season is still a couple months off and I can't seem to smoke enough pot to deal with your "higher evolution forms" nonsense ... I might not know why trilobites suddenly appear in such diversity, but we do know why cyanobacteria did ...

Again, this is just a counter-example and only proves we haven't solved the entire puzzle yet ... no one claims we have, and research continues ... what you've FAILED to do, and why you are completely WRONG ... is to prove your theory explains the Cambrian Explosion better than evolution ... you're too much of a coward to even state your theory, yea, it really is that bad, and you know it ...

You're in the Science forum ... honey ... your philosophies come across as juvenile and uneducated ... like a small child holding her hands to her ears screaming "I can't hear you" ... until you say what is right, you will be WRONG ...

Did you write this?????
The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards ... (it supports your ignorant opinion) ... science requires repeatable experimentation AND a theory that supports the results of the experiments ...



Is any of this 'philosophical'????


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science



b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.





c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.



d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution



Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:

"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."

Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.





f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.



g. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " 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)

h. In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Error - Cookies Turned Off

i. "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.).



j. 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.



Is any of the above 'philosophical' or are you simply a lying low-life????

"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.’”

The above is another of the edited, parsed and phony ''quotes'' that the religious extremist dumps into multiple threads. It is a part of the lies, deceit and fraud that the religious extremist uses to spread misinformation.

Here's the fuller context that includes the fraudulently edited parts of the description.

Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"

Quote #14

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. 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)

Snipped in the ellipsis is:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Following this passage is:

"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.

As we see, the religious extremist is both dishonest and a fraud as she attempts to edit and parse ''quotes'' she dumps into multiple threads.

 

[Hollie]

P

They found the remains of a creature 320 million years ago that birds, humans and reptiles are all related to.
First we have to ask if you even believe animals were on this earth 320 million years ago.

Better to ask what birds have in common with cyanobacteria ... here we look at some basic cell functions that are common to most all life ... did something like ADP/ATP energy transport arise independently, or just once in some distant common ancestor? ...

me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards


No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.


Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.
Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.

TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.

d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.


f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.


Get it????

I am never....NEVER....wrong.

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!




This is not the first time I've caught you lying, is it.

What you have done is offered a "counter-example" ... and a fairly retarded one at that ... there are better ... why you're WRONG is that you failed to explain how the Cambrian Explosion fits into your theory of this species radiation ... you haven't even stated your theory ... c'mon now, little girl, don't be such a scardy cat, we promise to only rip you one new butthole ...

a] Citation please ... when and where did Charles Darwin say this? ... just about all contemporary evolutionists would scoff at such a notion ... "complexity" doesn't drive evolution, changing ecosystems do ... if a new niche opens up that would only support a more simple organism, then we will see the opposite of what your ignorance claims ... consider that bacteria had to evolve first, before viruses could, duh, and viruses are so simple as to (perhaps) not even be considered life ...

b] and c] would be true if indeed the Cambrian Explosion did take only two minutes ... but it occurred over 20 million years ... 20 million generations ... we can show speciation in fruit flies in just under 100,000 generations, and insects are an exceptional evolved class of creatures ... they fly !!! ...

We don't know why the Earth's climate changed back then ... but there is a body of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the Earth was ice-bound for close to a billion years before the Cambrian ... I don't suppose you're aware that chemical reaction rates are dependent on temperature ... such that, in ice, evolution occurs very very slowly ... the Earth warmed up and all the ice melted, not surprising that the number of individual organisms exploded ... thus the term Cambrian Explosion ...

Terrestrial life had to wait under there was life on land ... duh ...

d], e] and f] are just deeper into this foolish rabbit hole ... magic mushroom season is still a couple months off and I can't seem to smoke enough pot to deal with your "higher evolution forms" nonsense ... I might not know why trilobites suddenly appear in such diversity, but we do know why cyanobacteria did ...

Again, this is just a counter-example and only proves we haven't solved the entire puzzle yet ... no one claims we have, and research continues ... what you've FAILED to do, and why you are completely WRONG ... is to prove your theory explains the Cambrian Explosion better than evolution ... you're too much of a coward to even state your theory, yea, it really is that bad, and you know it ...

You're in the Science forum ... honey ... your philosophies come across as juvenile and uneducated ... like a small child holding her hands to her ears screaming "I can't hear you" ... until you say what is right, you will be WRONG ...

Did you write this?????
The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards ... (it supports your ignorant opinion) ... science requires repeatable experimentation AND a theory that supports the results of the experiments ...



Is any of this 'philosophical'????


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science



b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.





c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.



d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution



Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:

"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."

Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.





f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.



g. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " 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)

h. In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Error - Cookies Turned Off

i. "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.).



j. 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.



Is any of the above 'philosophical' or are you simply a lying low-life????

Another fraud that the religious extremist cuts and pastes into multiple threads.


Another fraud.

" 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)





No link to Nature exists. The link redirects here: freerepublic.com/focus/fr/854288/posts
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists



Holy Harun Yahya but you're a dishonest fraud.

 

[Hollie]

They found the remains of a creature 320 million years ago that birds, humans and reptiles are all related to.
First we have to ask if you even believe animals were on this earth 320 million years ago.

Better to ask what birds have in common with cyanobacteria ... here we look at some basic cell functions that are common to most all life ... did something like ADP/ATP energy transport arise independently, or just once in some distant common ancestor? ...

me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards


No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.


Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.
Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.

TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.

d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.


f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.


Get it????

I am never....NEVER....wrong.

In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!




This is not the first time I've caught you lying, is it.

What you have done is offered a "counter-example" ... and a fairly retarded one at that ... there are better ... why you're WRONG is that you failed to explain how the Cambrian Explosion fits into your theory of this species radiation ... you haven't even stated your theory ... c'mon now, little girl, don't be such a scardy cat, we promise to only rip you one new butthole ...

a] Citation please ... when and where did Charles Darwin say this? ... just about all contemporary evolutionists would scoff at such a notion ... "complexity" doesn't drive evolution, changing ecosystems do ... if a new niche opens up that would only support a more simple organism, then we will see the opposite of what your ignorance claims ... consider that bacteria had to evolve first, before viruses could, duh, and viruses are so simple as to (perhaps) not even be considered life ...

b] and c] would be true if indeed the Cambrian Explosion did take only two minutes ... but it occurred over 20 million years ... 20 million generations ... we can show speciation in fruit flies in just under 100,000 generations, and insects are an exceptional evolved class of creatures ... they fly !!! ...

We don't know why the Earth's climate changed back then ... but there is a body of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the Earth was ice-bound for close to a billion years before the Cambrian ... I don't suppose you're aware that chemical reaction rates are dependent on temperature ... such that, in ice, evolution occurs very very slowly ... the Earth warmed up and all the ice melted, not surprising that the number of individual organisms exploded ... thus the term Cambrian Explosion ...

Terrestrial life had to wait under there was life on land ... duh ...

d], e] and f] are just deeper into this foolish rabbit hole ... magic mushroom season is still a couple months off and I can't seem to smoke enough pot to deal with your "higher evolution forms" nonsense ... I might not know why trilobites suddenly appear in such diversity, but we do know why cyanobacteria did ...

Again, this is just a counter-example and only proves we haven't solved the entire puzzle yet ... no one claims we have, and research continues ... what you've FAILED to do, and why you are completely WRONG ... is to prove your theory explains the Cambrian Explosion better than evolution ... you're too much of a coward to even state your theory, yea, it really is that bad, and you know it ...

You're in the Science forum ... honey ... your philosophies come across as juvenile and uneducated ... like a small child holding her hands to her ears screaming "I can't hear you" ... until you say what is right, you will be WRONG ...

Did you write this?????
The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards ... (it supports your ignorant opinion) ... science requires repeatable experimentation AND a theory that supports the results of the experiments ...



Is any of this 'philosophical'????


a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science



b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.





c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.



d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution



Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:

"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."

Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.





f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.



g. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " 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)

h. In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Error - Cookies Turned Off

i. "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.).



j. 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.



Is any of the above 'philosophical' or are you simply a lying low-life????

Here we see the religious extremist ''quote-mining'' Austin Clark. Unfortunately, the religious extremist has used this phony ''quote-mine'' repeatedly, knowing it's a fraud.

Austin Hobart Clark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Clark is best known for his evolutionary theory called zoogenesis, which he introduced in his book The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930).[1] His theory challenged the single tree view of evolution, according to Clark the major types of life forms on earth evolved separately and independently from all the others.[2] Clark wrote that "the seemingly simultaneous appearance of all the phyla or major groups of animals simply means that life at its very first beginnings developed at once and simultaneously from the primitive single cell in every possible direction, giving rise to some original form or forms in every phylum." He termed this process, eogenesis.[1]

Clark was quote-mined by creationists but he rejected any supernatural view of origins.

 

[ReinyDays]

Is any of the above 'philosophical' or are you simply a lying low-life????

It's all philosophical without you stating your underlying scientific theory ... you're like a house cat in that it's near impossible for you to learn anything ...

Demonstrate why it is impossible for the Cambrian Explosion to occur as Evolution predicts ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is any of the above 'philosophical' or are you simply a lying low-life????

It's all philosophical without you stating your underlying scientific theory ... you're like a house cat in that it's near impossible for you to learn anything ...

Demonstrate why it is impossible for the Cambrian Explosion to occur as Evolution predicts ...

You are a low-live, scummy liar.

All of it deals with empirical data.

Now.....get back under that rock.



me: What I have said is that Darwinism is false......and I did prove it.

You: The philosophical "proof" you've offered only measures up to your own personal standards





No, you dunce, I provided data from scientific journals.





Watch carefully as I utterly destroy.....obliterate......pulverize......you and Darwin.

Darwin....simple accumulated tiny alterations that eventually produce a new, complex, species.



TOTALLY FALSE.....as documented here:





a. Darwin said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science



b. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species.





c. The most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century, George Gaylord Simpson, commented on that very question: "...there is still a mystery to speculate about: Why and how did many animals begin to have hard parts- skeletons of sorts- with apparent suddenness around the beginning of the Cambrian" Simpson, "Fossils and The History of Life," p.73.



d. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution



Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



e. There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:

"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."

Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.





f. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Peter Farb, The Insects, Life N "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.



g. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!! " 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)

h. In 1999, paleontologists in Southern China also found fossil remains of fish in the Cambrian period. Fish are vertebrates, members of the phylum chordata. Shu, et. al., "Lower Cambrian Vertebrates in Southern China" (Haikouichthy) Error - Cookies Turned Off

i. "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.).



j. 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.





Get it????



I am never....NEVER....wrong.



In your face.....boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeee!!!!