Voting For Scientific Truth????

[EL Rich]

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!!!!

Kroshka, why do you run away from me?

 

[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 ...

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!!!!

You'll need to re-post that a couple of more dozen times ... the server offers 26-point text, maybe use it the next eight or ten times ...

Like a little girl with her dainty little hands over her ears stomping her delicate little foot shrieking "I can't hear you" ... cute as a belly-button that is ...

Post your theory or you ain't got nothing ... and 5,000,000 times zero is still zero ... empirically ...

 

[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!!!!

You'll need to re-post that a couple of more dozen times ... the server offers 26-point text, maybe use it the next eight or ten times ...

Like a little girl with her dainty little hands over her ears stomping her delicate little foot shrieking "I can't hear you" ... cute as a belly-button that is ...

Post your theory or you ain't got nothing ... and 5,000,000 times zero is still zero ... empirically ...

This is not the first time you've been exposed as a lying creep.

Earlier, you altered a post of yours, and claimed I did it.

You're simply scum.


Here it is:

"I've spend (sic) an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... "

Perhaps you should have SPENT a bit more working on spelling.

You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling ... believe me, I like the idea of letting landlords handle their own evictions, a good solid beating keeps the tenants in line and rent paid ... every teenage girl should bear her landlord's baby first, so she has one child to care for her when she's old ... the Middle Class doesn't belong in a courtroom, not even on courthouse grounds ... the courts are for settling disputes between the Rich and the Rich alone ... lawyers get that, why can't you? ...

You're against the very institution that protects your Free Speech rights ... maybe you should stop speaking then ...

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

"If I am innocent, I'd want a military jury ... If I'm guilty, I'd want a civilian jury" -- F. Scott Bailey Only college graduates are allowed to serve on military juries ... cute ...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Hollie]

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!!!!



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

“Get it????



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



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

Quite an impressive argument.

Are you at the top of the 7th grade class at the Harun Yahya madrassah?

 

[Hollie]

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!!!!

You'll need to re-post that a couple of more dozen times ... the server offers 26-point text, maybe use it the next eight or ten times ...

Like a little girl with her dainty little hands over her ears stomping her delicate little foot shrieking "I can't hear you" ... cute as a belly-button that is ...

Post your theory or you ain't got nothing ... and 5,000,000 times zero is still zero ... empirically ...

This is not the first time you've been exposed as a lying creep.

Earlier, you altered a post of yours, and claimed I did it.

You're simply scum.


Here it is:

"I've spend (sic) an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... "

Perhaps you should have SPENT a bit more working on spelling.

You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling ... believe me, I like the idea of letting landlords handle their own evictions, a good solid beating keeps the tenants in line and rent paid ... every teenage girl should bear her landlord's baby first, so she has one child to care for her when she's old ... the Middle Class doesn't belong in a courtroom, not even on courthouse grounds ... the courts are for settling disputes between the Rich and the Rich alone ... lawyers get that, why can't you? ...

You're against the very institution that protects your Free Speech rights ... maybe you should stop speaking then ...

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

"If I am innocent, I'd want a military jury ... If I'm guilty, I'd want a civilian jury" -- F. Scott Bailey Only college graduates are allowed to serve on military juries ... cute ...

www.usmessageboard.com

“You're simply scum.”


“Get lost you disgusting little worm.”

Quite compelling arguments on your part.

 

[EL Rich]

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!!!!

You'll need to re-post that a couple of more dozen times ... the server offers 26-point text, maybe use it the next eight or ten times ...

Like a little girl with her dainty little hands over her ears stomping her delicate little foot shrieking "I can't hear you" ... cute as a belly-button that is ...

Post your theory or you ain't got nothing ... and 5,000,000 times zero is still zero ... empirically ...

This is not the first time you've been exposed as a lying creep.

Earlier, you altered a post of yours, and claimed I did it.

You're simply scum.


Here it is:

"I've spend (sic) an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... "

Perhaps you should have SPENT a bit more working on spelling.

You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling ... believe me, I like the idea of letting landlords handle their own evictions, a good solid beating keeps the tenants in line and rent paid ... every teenage girl should bear her landlord's baby first, so she has one child to care for her when she's old ... the Middle Class doesn't belong in a courtroom, not even on courthouse grounds ... the courts are for settling disputes between the Rich and the Rich alone ... lawyers get that, why can't you? ...

You're against the very institution that protects your Free Speech rights ... maybe you should stop speaking then ...

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

"If I am innocent, I'd want a military jury ... If I'm guilty, I'd want a civilian jury" -- F. Scott Bailey Only college graduates are allowed to serve on military juries ... cute ...

www.usmessageboard.com

“You're simply scum.”


“Get lost you disgusting little worm.”

Quite compelling arguments on your part.

Don’t take Pol Chick seriously. I think she actually believes the things she cuts and pastes (not really much actual individual thought but she seems to understand what she reads, though her context is kind of whack a-doodles). She pretty much just trolls and insult folks who disagree with her. Sad.

 

[ReinyDays]

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

"If I am innocent, I'd want a military jury ... If I'm guilty, I'd want a civilian jury" -- F. Scott Bailey Only college graduates are allowed to serve on military juries ... cute ...

www.usmessageboard.com

I kinda remember that ... was that you? ... you changed a letter or two in my post so you could criticize my spelting ... yea, I still think that was funny ... you admit my arguments are unassailable, thus you're only left with attacking my person ... thank you for the full admission that you are, indeed, WRONG ...

Here's a life-lesson for you little girl ... when you call everybody a liar, everyone will think you're the liar ... I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that's how things are ... "It's the theif who cries out 'you're a thief' first" -- somewhere in the Bible (I forget where) ...

But kind I'll be a bone to you toss ... zu werfen ... ha ha ha .. get it ... zu werfen ... haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw ...

Did you really bookmark that thread? ... yeesh ... maybe pick up needlework or join a bridge club ... honey, you need better hobbies ...

 

[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 ...

Are you denying all this stuff

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!!!!

youre quoting George Gaylord simpson. He believed in evolution in fact he’s one of the original ganester of evolution. Did you know that?

 

[sealybobo]

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!!!!

You'll need to re-post that a couple of more dozen times ... the server offers 26-point text, maybe use it the next eight or ten times ...

Like a little girl with her dainty little hands over her ears stomping her delicate little foot shrieking "I can't hear you" ... cute as a belly-button that is ...

Post your theory or you ain't got nothing ... and 5,000,000 times zero is still zero ... empirically ...

This is not the first time you've been exposed as a lying creep.

Earlier, you altered a post of yours, and claimed I did it.

You're simply scum.


Here it is:

"I've spend (sic) an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... "

Perhaps you should have SPENT a bit more working on spelling.

You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling ... believe me, I like the idea of letting landlords handle their own evictions, a good solid beating keeps the tenants in line and rent paid ... every teenage girl should bear her landlord's baby first, so she has one child to care for her when she's old ... the Middle Class doesn't belong in a courtroom, not even on courthouse grounds ... the courts are for settling disputes between the Rich and the Rich alone ... lawyers get that, why can't you? ...

You're against the very institution that protects your Free Speech rights ... maybe you should stop speaking then ...

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

"If I am innocent, I'd want a military jury ... If I'm guilty, I'd want a civilian jury" -- F. Scott Bailey Only college graduates are allowed to serve on military juries ... cute ...

www.usmessageboard.com

“You're simply scum.”


“Get lost you disgusting little worm.”

Quite compelling arguments on your part.

Don’t take Pol Chick seriously. I think she actually believes the things she cuts and pastes (not really much actual individual thought but she seems to understand what she reads, though her context is kind of whack a-doodles). She pretty much just trolls and insult folks who disagree with her. Sad.

She doesn’t understand what she reads and takes things out of context.

Her bottom line is you can’t perform a test in a lab with repeatable testing to prove the theory so since it happened so long ago, sorry, can’t prove it. Don’t believe it.

But did Jesus walk on water 2020 years ago? Fuck yea. She’ll even give the church that sold her that story 10%.

Im finally being proven right. Religion makes people stupid and is bad for us.

 

[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????

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.

Does Clark believe humans ancestors at one point lived in and breathed water or does he believe god created humans one day?

And political dick seems to suggest advanced creatures just suddenly appeared during this period where diversity exploded

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

"If I am innocent, I'd want a military jury ... If I'm guilty, I'd want a civilian jury" -- F. Scott Bailey Only college graduates are allowed to serve on military juries ... cute ...

www.usmessageboard.com

I kinda remember that ... was that you? ... you changed a letter or two in my post so you could criticize my spelting ... yea, I still think that was funny ... you admit my arguments are unassailable, thus you're only left with attacking my person ... thank you for the full admission that you are, indeed, WRONG ...

Here's a life-lesson for you little girl ... when you call everybody a liar, everyone will think you're the liar ... I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that's how things are ... "It's the theif who cries out 'you're a thief' first" -- somewhere in the Bible (I forget where) ...

But kind I'll be a bone to you toss ... zu werfen ... ha ha ha .. get it ... zu werfen ... haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw ...

Did you really bookmark that thread? ... yeesh ... maybe pick up needlework or join a bridge club ... honey, you need better hobbies ...

".. you changed a letter or two in my post so you could criticize my spelting ."



I never changed anything, you scummy, low-life liar.

You misspelled just as you did today: " spelting ."

You lied then and you're lying now.

"I've spend (sic) an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... "

Perhaps you should have SPENT a bit more working on spelling.

You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling ... believe me, I like the idea of letting landlords handle their own evictions, a good solid beating keeps the tenants in line and rent paid ... every teenage girl should bear her landlord's baby first, so she has one child to care for her when she's old ... the Middle Class doesn't belong in a courtroom, not even on courthouse grounds ... the courts are for settling disputes between the Rich and the Rich alone ... lawyers get that, why can't you? ...



You're against the very institution that protects your Free Speech rights ... maybe you should stop speaking then ...

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

 

[ReinyDays]

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

"If I am innocent, I'd want a military jury ... If I'm guilty, I'd want a civilian jury" -- F. Scott Bailey Only college graduates are allowed to serve on military juries ... cute ...

www.usmessageboard.com

I kinda remember that ... was that you? ... you changed a letter or two in my post so you could criticize my spelting ... yea, I still think that was funny ... you admit my arguments are unassailable, thus you're only left with attacking my person ... thank you for the full admission that you are, indeed, WRONG ...

Here's a life-lesson for you little girl ... when you call everybody a liar, everyone will think you're the liar ... I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that's how things are ... "It's the theif who cries out 'you're a thief' first" -- somewhere in the Bible (I forget where) ...

But kind I'll be a bone to you toss ... zu werfen ... ha ha ha .. get it ... zu werfen ... haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw ...

Did you really bookmark that thread? ... yeesh ... maybe pick up needlework or join a bridge club ... honey, you need better hobbies ...

".. you changed a letter or two in my post so you could criticize my spelting ."



I never changed anything, you scummy, low-life liar.

You misspelled just as you did today: " spelting ."

You lied then and you're lying now.

"I've spend (sic) an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... "

Perhaps you should have SPENT a bit more working on spelling.

You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling ... believe me, I like the idea of letting landlords handle their own evictions, a good solid beating keeps the tenants in line and rent paid ... every teenage girl should bear her landlord's baby first, so she has one child to care for her when she's old ... the Middle Class doesn't belong in a courtroom, not even on courthouse grounds ... the courts are for settling disputes between the Rich and the Rich alone ... lawyers get that, why can't you? ...



You're against the very institution that protects your Free Speech rights ... maybe you should stop speaking then ...

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

[Yawn] ...

That's the best you got ... insulting my Englishing skills ...

Do you know what a "lie of omission" is? ... if someone asks you to state your theory that your claims are based on, and you refuse, that's an omission ... and a lie ... you're not a lair, are you darling girl? ... how about we open up a can of wet food and see if that will bring you out ... here, Chick Chick Chick, come out where ever you are ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

"If I am innocent, I'd want a military jury ... If I'm guilty, I'd want a civilian jury" -- F. Scott Bailey Only college graduates are allowed to serve on military juries ... cute ...

www.usmessageboard.com

I kinda remember that ... was that you? ... you changed a letter or two in my post so you could criticize my spelting ... yea, I still think that was funny ... you admit my arguments are unassailable, thus you're only left with attacking my person ... thank you for the full admission that you are, indeed, WRONG ...

Here's a life-lesson for you little girl ... when you call everybody a liar, everyone will think you're the liar ... I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that's how things are ... "It's the theif who cries out 'you're a thief' first" -- somewhere in the Bible (I forget where) ...

But kind I'll be a bone to you toss ... zu werfen ... ha ha ha .. get it ... zu werfen ... haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw ...

Did you really bookmark that thread? ... yeesh ... maybe pick up needlework or join a bridge club ... honey, you need better hobbies ...

".. you changed a letter or two in my post so you could criticize my spelting ."



I never changed anything, you scummy, low-life liar.

You misspelled just as you did today: " spelting ."

You lied then and you're lying now.

"I've spend (sic) an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... "

Perhaps you should have SPENT a bit more working on spelling.

You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling ... believe me, I like the idea of letting landlords handle their own evictions, a good solid beating keeps the tenants in line and rent paid ... every teenage girl should bear her landlord's baby first, so she has one child to care for her when she's old ... the Middle Class doesn't belong in a courtroom, not even on courthouse grounds ... the courts are for settling disputes between the Rich and the Rich alone ... lawyers get that, why can't you? ...



You're against the very institution that protects your Free Speech rights ... maybe you should stop speaking then ...

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

[Yawn] ...

That's the best you got ... insulting my Englishing skills ...

Do you know what a "lie of omission" is? ... if someone asks you to state your theory that your claims are based on, and you refuse, that's an omission ... and a lie ... you're not a lair, are you darling girl? ... how about we open up a can of wet food and see if that will bring you out ... here, Chick Chick Chick, come out where ever you are ...

Be gone, scum.

 

[EL Rich]

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

"If I am innocent, I'd want a military jury ... If I'm guilty, I'd want a civilian jury" -- F. Scott Bailey Only college graduates are allowed to serve on military juries ... cute ...

www.usmessageboard.com

I kinda remember that ... was that you? ... you changed a letter or two in my post so you could criticize my spelting ... yea, I still think that was funny ... you admit my arguments are unassailable, thus you're only left with attacking my person ... thank you for the full admission that you are, indeed, WRONG ...

Here's a life-lesson for you little girl ... when you call everybody a liar, everyone will think you're the liar ... I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that's how things are ... "It's the theif who cries out 'you're a thief' first" -- somewhere in the Bible (I forget where) ...

But kind I'll be a bone to you toss ... zu werfen ... ha ha ha .. get it ... zu werfen ... haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw ...

Did you really bookmark that thread? ... yeesh ... maybe pick up needlework or join a bridge club ... honey, you need better hobbies ...

".. you changed a letter or two in my post so you could criticize my spelting ."



I never changed anything, you scummy, low-life liar.

You misspelled just as you did today: " spelting ."

You lied then and you're lying now.

"I've spend (sic) an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... "

Perhaps you should have SPENT a bit more working on spelling.

You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling ... believe me, I like the idea of letting landlords handle their own evictions, a good solid beating keeps the tenants in line and rent paid ... every teenage girl should bear her landlord's baby first, so she has one child to care for her when she's old ... the Middle Class doesn't belong in a courtroom, not even on courthouse grounds ... the courts are for settling disputes between the Rich and the Rich alone ... lawyers get that, why can't you? ...



You're against the very institution that protects your Free Speech rights ... maybe you should stop speaking then ...

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "



You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

[from post #7: I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...]



Get lost you disgusting little worm.

Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

[Yawn] ...

That's the best you got ... insulting my Englishing skills ...

Do you know what a "lie of omission" is? ... if someone asks you to state your theory that your claims are based on, and you refuse, that's an omission ... and a lie ... you're not a lair, are you darling girl? ... how about we open up a can of wet food and see if that will bring you out ... here, Chick Chick Chick, come out where ever you are ...

Be gone, scum.

Pol Chic (or Pole Chic?),
Have you noticed that your “conversations” no matter who they are with end with you abandoning your, admittedly inane line of reasoning, to cast insults. A piece of advice, if you meet an ass hole during your day that is unfortunate, if you are meeting ass holes all day long, you’re probably the ass hole. Food for thought.

 

[ReinyDays]

Be gone, scum.

As long as you keep acknowledging me ... I will continue to ask you questions about your OP ... what is your theory that better describes the Cambrian Explosion? ... from frozen oceans at the equator to tropical conditions at the poles ... ten of millions of generations ... why wouldn't the diversity of life quickly expand to fill all the new ecological niches? ...

I guess you noticed the dewormer in that wet food ... [sigh] ... darling, them brain worms are just going to keep getting into your cerebral cortex ... makes you post stupidity ... I know it tastes bad but in a couple of days we'll be able to scoop them bastards out of the litter tray and be done with them ... at least until you're infested with fleas again ...

Were you yourself home-schooled ... sure does seem that way ...

"Grammer" ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. Of interest is the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology definition of a theory: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology | National Center for Science Education



Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Something isn’t right, here.



Now…..why is it presented to the uninformed as a proven fact?

 

[ReinyDays]

Now…..why is it presented to the uninformed as a proven fact?

Here I agree with you ... and I think it's sad you're so vexed by my poor Englishing skills that you didn't realize this yet ...

My interests are more focused on physics, chemistry and astronomy ... the "hard" sciences ... where even theories must be backed up with rigid mathematical proof, or it's just conjecture ... but that sword cuts both ways, we'll need rigid mathematical proof that evolution is in error ... biology is a "soft" science, there is no great body of math that establishes these theories, as of today ... growing more food per acre, curing cancer, better materials for industry ... no big need to spend time sorting through extensive sets of partial differential equations ... [giggle] ... like NS ...

The trick here is folks bifurcate Abiogenesis and Evolution .. and then claim they have nothing to do with each other ... which is as silly as claiming the nuclear fusion in a star's core has nothing to do with the light escaping the surface ... it's fine studying the two separately, as long as we remember how intertwined the two are ...I'm sorry, without Abiogenesis, we can't even define the word "life", we're forced to make assumptions ...

Just one assumption in our logic, and we've discredited any "facts" we believe in ...

The important point is that these original chemical reactions can be found ... so it's not dogmaic faith that we believe these chemical reactions occurred in the past ... it's science ...

Just a quick nitpick ... Einstein/Wasserman (1915) provides an extremely robust mathematical proof that gravity is a pseudo-force ... an apparition of our frame-of-reference ... material objects don't attract one another, it is the space between them that converges ... try not to use this as an example of what is accepted by scientists, it's not, hasn't been for 100 years now ... biologists aren't the smartest people in the world ...

 

[Hollie]

12. Of interest is the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology definition of a theory: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology | National Center for Science Education



Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Something isn’t right, here.



Now…..why is it presented to the uninformed as a proven fact?

1. Your silly rants are comical. They are a part of the fear and ignorance that afflicts religionism.

2. What a shame to be a Henry Morris cardboard character.

Claim CA202:
Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 4-6.

CA202: Evolution proof

www.talkorigins.org

Response:

1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
   • All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
   • Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
   • Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
   • Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
   • The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
   • Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
   • Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
   • Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
   • The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
   • Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
   • The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
   • When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
   • The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
   • Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
   • Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
   • Speciation has been observed.
   • The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
2. Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
   
   The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

 

[Hollie]

12. Of interest is the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology definition of a theory: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology | National Center for Science Education



Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Something isn’t right, here.



Now…..why is it presented to the uninformed as a proven fact?

1. It's remarkable that you don't bother to read what you cut and paste. What you cut and pasted included; ''... evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”

2. You then started whining about Darwinian theory not being testable when the article you cut and pasted identifies evolution as an accepted theory among scientists.

3. You make yourself a laughable joke.

 

[LittleNipper]

12. Of interest is the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology definition of a theory: “In science, a theory is a coherent explanation of natural phenomena based on direct observation or experimentation. Theories are logical, predictive, and testable. They are open to criticism and when shown to be false, they are modified or dismissed. Using this definition, evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology | National Center for Science Education



Except that Darwin’s theory is not testable, not based on direct observation or experimentation, nor is it universally accepted among scientists.

Something isn’t right, here.



Now…..why is it presented to the uninformed as a proven fact?

1. It's remarkable that you don't bother to read what you cut and paste. What you cut and pasted included; ''... evolution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.”

2. You then started whining about Darwinian theory not being testable when the article you cut and pasted identifies evolution as an accepted theory among scientists.

3. You make yourself a laughable joke.

Go to church and you will find that GOD is universally accepted among parishioners. Can they prove GOD to you? Can you prove Darwinism to me? Tell me, what exactly is the difference? Is either testable? Show me the money!

Same CREATOR similar design specifications.