Why Darwin?

[Hollie]

The theory of Evolution has progressed far beyond the original rudimentary theory that Darwin formulated.

Arguing against evolution by arguing against Darwin is a textbook strawman.

"...progressed..." meaning it is not correct?

Great.

My point exactly.

Evolution is the best theory of the origin and development of life on this planet, and there is no other theory that even comes close to competing.

That is the beginning, middle, and end of the discussion.

Let's stick to the premise of the OP: Darwin's theory is neither correct, nor the only theory of evolution.

6. There are various other theories posed by noted scientists. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, actually put forth the view that visitors from other planets 'dropped' life on earth. "Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and thatlife here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature',, p.141

Good one, huh?
How come they teach Darwin in schools.....there's just as much evidence for Crick's theory.



7. Proposing to show how something might emerge from nothing, physicist Victor Stenger introduces “another universe [that] existed prior to ours that tunneled through . . . to become our universe."
His effort posits that something comes from nothing....so who needs Darwin's explanation.


Stenger actually suggests this :" If we have no reason to assume ours is the only life form, we also have no reason to assume that ours is the only universe. Many universes can exist, with all possible combinations of physical laws and constants. In that case, we just happen to be in the particular one that was suited for the evolution of our form of life."
Talk Reason arguments against creationism intelligent design and religious apologetics



8. Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion,” makes no secret of his disdain for those of faith, and contempt for theology. As in the case of many of our atheist scientists, they have hoped to discover laws, and endorses Stenger's multiverse idea.

Then Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”

Have you seen said statistics?


Funny stuff that fake 'scientists' put out.

Funnier yet, what you'll believe.

Even funnier.... yet..... Is your "quote" by Francis Crick, complete with identical bolded text is found here: Origin of Man 7 Directed panspermia

Provethebible.net?

Try here for "quotes" with a similar objective for accuracy:

You'resostupidyou'llbelieveanything.net

 

[PoliticalChic]

The theory of Evolution has progressed far beyond the original rudimentary theory that Darwin formulated.

Arguing against evolution by arguing against Darwin is a textbook strawman.

"...progressed..." meaning it is not correct?

Great.

My point exactly.

Evolution is the best theory of the origin and development of life on this planet, and there is no other theory that even comes close to competing.

That is the beginning, middle, and end of the discussion.

Let's stick to the premise of the OP: Darwin's theory is neither correct, nor the only theory of evolution.

6. There are various other theories posed by noted scientists. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, actually put forth the view that visitors from other planets 'dropped' life on earth. "Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and thatlife here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature',, p.141

Good one, huh?
How come they teach Darwin in schools.....there's just as much evidence for Crick's theory.



7. Proposing to show how something might emerge from nothing, physicist Victor Stenger introduces “another universe [that] existed prior to ours that tunneled through . . . to become our universe."
His effort posits that something comes from nothing....so who needs Darwin's explanation.


Stenger actually suggests this :" If we have no reason to assume ours is the only life form, we also have no reason to assume that ours is the only universe. Many universes can exist, with all possible combinations of physical laws and constants. In that case, we just happen to be in the particular one that was suited for the evolution of our form of life."
Talk Reason arguments against creationism intelligent design and religious apologetics



8. Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion,” makes no secret of his disdain for those of faith, and contempt for theology. As in the case of many of our atheist scientists, they have hoped to discover laws, and endorses Stenger's multiverse idea.

Then Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”

Have you seen said statistics?


Funny stuff that fake 'scientists' put out.

Funnier yet, what you'll believe.

Why don't you tell us what you believe the scientific explanation for life on earth is.

At this point you're admitting that Darwin's theory is proven false?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Another ridiculous and failed thread from the OP.

Pathetic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Time and again graduates of government/liberal education institutions have reacted aggressively to any criticism of Dawin's theory of evolution. As has been pointed out, this is because said institutions favor Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-religion worldviews, and Darwin's thesis serves as bedrock support for this view.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


2. " Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17

Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.



3. To defend Darwin, said acolytes often claim that it is the only 'scientific' theory of evolution, or that it is accepted by all scientists.

Hardly.

There are many theories meant to explain all life on earth. Darwin's is called a 'bottom-up' theory, based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.



Not only does the fossil record not support this view, but the discovery of the Burgess Shale, with all sorts of suddenly-appearing species, ended support of Darwin by cognoscenti.

Once more?
Evidence inveighs strongly against such a Darwinian view.


So....why Darwin?

because Darwin was right----with the sole exception of that "ONE ORIGINAL BEING" theory. There is no
reason to believe that all depends on the FIRST LIVING
OOZE FORM. Living ooze can show up anywhere
that the formation of living ooze is possible <<<<
rosie's amendment

No, Darwin wasn't right.
Actually, no one who understands Darwin's theory says he was right.

I can help you.

Even neo-Darwinists opt for alternative theories!


4. Along came Stephen J, Gould, and Niles Eldredge, who applied Karl Marx's idea of history, and came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which posited that, yes....species can appear suddenly: "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.'"
6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


Strange, huh?


Darwin claimed that there has to be a progression of minor changes that resulted in new species: Gould says 'well...no....species can suddenly appear'...and this is his defense of Darwin???

So....Gould and Niles use the 'we had to destroy the village in order to save the village' defense!




5. Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches.

In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin].

The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

So you honestly believe that certain species appeared on this planet out of nowhere, fully formed?

How would that work? One moment you'd have an empty field, and the next moment it would be full of what? Horses?

Oh bad example. The evolution of the horse is thoroughly documented.

Give us an example of an animal that appeared out of nowhere.

I know right?

She believes species appeared fully formed, but cannot for the life of her offer a plausible scientifically sound explanation as to how that would happen.

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC cuts and pastes:

6. There are various other theories posed by noted scientists. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, actually put forth the view that visitors from other planets 'dropped' life on earth. "Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and thatlife here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature',, p.141


So you're now on to the space alien conspiracy theory thing.

Super.

What's next. Are to going to start "quote-mining" from Alex Jones and supermarket tabloids?

People like her get tied up in knots trying to reject Evolution as the best scientific explanation because what she really wants to do is reject science entirely,

and say 'God did it all, and it's his magic.'

What knots have you found, liar?

Everything I post is linked, sourced, and documented.....as always.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the following, as in all of my posts, the proof of every statement is supported.


Of course, any theory that sets out to explain the diversity of life on the planet today faces the so-far insurmountable obstacle of actually demonstrating a change from one species into another. And, if one favors Darwin, that change must be from a simpler to a more advanced one.


9. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,
"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.

Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton Signee of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism


No evidence? Pretty good basis for believing a theory???




More?


10. Lynn Margulis attended the University of Chicago, earned a master's degree in Biological Sciences from the University of Wisconsin-Madisonin 1960, and received herPh.D.in 1963 in the faculty of Biological Sciences fromUC Berkeleyin Botany. Lynn Margulis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


a. “Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change [which] led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”―Lynn Margulis



b. “New mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”
―Lynn Margulis

And most mutation are fatal. That means they kill the incipient organism.

Dead......like Darwin's theory.


c. . "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution.


[With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations.

Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book,Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471




So...why are the captive unsophisticated in schools fed "Darwin theory" as though it is a fact, a law?

The reason is in the OP.

 

[LOki]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

God is a superstition.

 

[irosie91]

because Darwin was right----with the sole exception of that "ONE ORIGINAL BEING" theory. There is no
reason to believe that all depends on the FIRST LIVING
OOZE FORM. Living ooze can show up anywhere
that the formation of living ooze is possible <<<<
rosie's amendment

No, Darwin wasn't right.
Actually, no one who understands Darwin's theory says he was right.

I can help you.

Even neo-Darwinists opt for alternative theories!


4. Along came Stephen J, Gould, and Niles Eldredge, who applied Karl Marx's idea of history, and came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which posited that, yes....species can appear suddenly: "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.'"
6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


Strange, huh?


Darwin claimed that there has to be a progression of minor changes that resulted in new species: Gould says 'well...no....species can suddenly appear'...and this is his defense of Darwin???

So....Gould and Niles use the 'we had to destroy the village in order to save the village' defense!




5. Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches.

In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin].

The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

So you honestly believe that certain species appeared on this planet out of nowhere, fully formed?

How would that work? One moment you'd have an empty field, and the next moment it would be full of what? Horses?

Oh bad example. The evolution of the horse is thoroughly documented.

Give us an example of an animal that appeared out of nowhere.

I know right?

She believes species appeared fully formed, but cannot for the life of her offer a plausible scientifically sound explanation as to how that would happen.

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

God is a superstition.

This thread has nothing to do with God......unless you're one of the morons who thinks Darwin is God.

 

[LOki]

In the following, as in all of my posts, the proof of every statement is supported.


Of course, any theory that sets out to explain the diversity of life on the planet today faces the so-far insurmountable obstacle of actually demonstrating a change from one species into another.

 

[Hollie]

PC cuts and pastes:

6. There are various other theories posed by noted scientists. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, actually put forth the view that visitors from other planets 'dropped' life on earth. "Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and thatlife here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature',, p.141


So you're now on to the space alien conspiracy theory thing.

Super.

What's next. Are to going to start "quote-mining" from Alex Jones and supermarket tabloids?

People like her get tied up in knots trying to reject Evolution as the best scientific explanation because what she really wants to do is reject science entirely,

and say 'God did it all, and it's his magic.'

What knots have you found, liar?

Everything I post is linked, sourced, and documented.....as always.

You're free to cut and paste "quotes" from all the fundie Christian websites you wish. When Harun Yahya has a handy "quote", dump that in also.

I suspect you will find that Alex Jones has some interesting conspiracy theories involving the gubmint and space aliens.

Won't that be fun?

 

[LOki]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

God is a superstition.

This thread has nothing to do with God......unless you're one of the morons who thinks Darwin is God.

Darwin was an actual human being that existed in reality.

God is superstition.

Just like your creationism and its creator.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, Darwin wasn't right.
Actually, no one who understands Darwin's theory says he was right.

I can help you.

Even neo-Darwinists opt for alternative theories!


4. Along came Stephen J, Gould, and Niles Eldredge, who applied Karl Marx's idea of history, and came up with 'Punctuated Equilibrium,' which posited that, yes....species can appear suddenly: "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.'"
6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


Strange, huh?


Darwin claimed that there has to be a progression of minor changes that resulted in new species: Gould says 'well...no....species can suddenly appear'...and this is his defense of Darwin???

So....Gould and Niles use the 'we had to destroy the village in order to save the village' defense!




5. Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches.

In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin].

The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292

So you honestly believe that certain species appeared on this planet out of nowhere, fully formed?

How would that work? One moment you'd have an empty field, and the next moment it would be full of what? Horses?

Oh bad example. The evolution of the horse is thoroughly documented.

Give us an example of an animal that appeared out of nowhere.

I know right?

She believes species appeared fully formed, but cannot for the life of her offer a plausible scientifically sound explanation as to how that would happen.

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "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.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

God is a superstition.

This thread has nothing to do with God......unless you're one of the morons who thinks Darwin is God.

Darwin was an actual human being that existed in reality.

God is superstition.

Just like your creationism and its creator.

I'm gonna assume two things:

1. the fact that you have to make things up that are not a part of the thread indicates that I am correct and you know that.

2. you are an imbecile....almost, but not quite, complete.

 

[LOki]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

God is a superstition.

Your pathological projection is still amusing.


This thread has nothing to do with God......unless you're one of the morons who thinks Darwin is God.

Darwin was an actual human being that existed in reality.

God is superstition.

Just like your creationism and its creator.

I'm gonna assume two things:

1. the fact that you have to make things up that are not a part of the thread indicates that I am correct and you know that.

2. you are an imbecile....almost, but not quite, complete.

Your pathological projection is still amusing.

Don't Stop Believin'

 

[Hollie]

So you honestly believe that certain species appeared on this planet out of nowhere, fully formed?

How would that work? One moment you'd have an empty field, and the next moment it would be full of what? Horses?

Oh bad example. The evolution of the horse is thoroughly documented.

Give us an example of an animal that appeared out of nowhere.

I know right?

She believes species appeared fully formed, but cannot for the life of her offer a plausible scientifically sound explanation as to how that would happen.

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "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.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

Fraud Alert!

PC is on a cut and paste rampage so there are the expected frauds.

Her Gould and Eldridge "quote" is a common fraud of the fundie whack job / conspiracy theorist cabal and a fraud I pointed out to her previously in one or more of her threads vilifying those Evilutionists.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis

Check out quote 14, top of the page.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The theory of Evolution has progressed far beyond the original rudimentary theory that Darwin formulated.

Arguing against evolution by arguing against Darwin is a textbook strawman.

"...progressed..." meaning it is not correct?

Great.

My point exactly.

Evolution is the best theory of the origin and development of life on this planet, and there is no other theory that even comes close to competing.

That is the beginning, middle, and end of the discussion.

Let's stick to the premise of the OP: Darwin's theory is neither correct, nor the only theory of evolution.

6. There are various other theories posed by noted scientists. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, actually put forth the view that visitors from other planets 'dropped' life on earth. "Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and thatlife here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature',, p.141

Good one, huh?
How come they teach Darwin in schools.....there's just as much evidence for Crick's theory.



7. Proposing to show how something might emerge from nothing, physicist Victor Stenger introduces “another universe [that] existed prior to ours that tunneled through . . . to become our universe."
His effort posits that something comes from nothing....so who needs Darwin's explanation.


Stenger actually suggests this :" If we have no reason to assume ours is the only life form, we also have no reason to assume that ours is the only universe. Many universes can exist, with all possible combinations of physical laws and constants. In that case, we just happen to be in the particular one that was suited for the evolution of our form of life."
Talk Reason arguments against creationism intelligent design and religious apologetics



8. Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion,” makes no secret of his disdain for those of faith, and contempt for theology. As in the case of many of our atheist scientists, they have hoped to discover laws, and endorses Stenger's multiverse idea.

Then Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”

Have you seen said statistics?


Funny stuff that fake 'scientists' put out.

Funnier yet, what you'll believe.

Why don't you tell us what you believe the scientific explanation for life on earth is.

At this point you're admitting that Darwin's theory is proven false?

Are you illiterate? Or just retarded? Darwin's theory at its core is accurate. Modern evolutionary theory is even more accurate.

Creationism is scientifically dead. Get over it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

God is a superstition.

This thread has nothing to do with God......unless you're one of the morons who thinks Darwin is God.

Are you admitting that your personal belief in the origin and development of life on Earth has nothing to do with any sort of God?

Seriously? You're admitting you're atheist? lol, shocker!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

God is a superstition.

This thread has nothing to do with God......unless you're one of the morons who thinks Darwin is God.

lol,

In this thread, God isn't everything. It's the only thing.

 

[Hollie]

So you honestly believe that certain species appeared on this planet out of nowhere, fully formed?

How would that work? One moment you'd have an empty field, and the next moment it would be full of what? Horses?

Oh bad example. The evolution of the horse is thoroughly documented.

Give us an example of an animal that appeared out of nowhere.

I know right?

She believes species appeared fully formed, but cannot for the life of her offer a plausible scientifically sound explanation as to how that would happen.

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "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.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

Your list above, (the list of frauds you itemized for our reading convenience), suggests your training at the Harun Yahya madrassah was an abysmal waste of time.

Here's an interesting read on biological mutations and suggests you might consider understanding the subject matter you obviously know nothing about.

The Evolution of Improved Fitness