Why Darwin?

[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.

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.

What is in this thread is your belief that species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth.

Tell us how that would manifest itself?

For example, would it resemble the transporter phenomenom so integral to the stories in Star Trek?

Would there be that sparkly thing going on as the beast materialized? Or was there a puff of smoke,

the magician's stock in trade.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who would like to hear your personal description of the details of your belief.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...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.

It's pretty clear, both that you are the lying imbecile, and that you are frustrated that I've, so very easily, revealed you as such.

1. Darwin's theory is false.

2. Bringing up creationism reveals that you know that I've proven it.

 

[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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bringing up religion is your version of the white flag.

I accept it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Creationism' is religion, subjective and irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever concerning the science that is evolution.

Once again we see those hostile to the fact of evolution making their fundamental mistake: incorrectly perceiving the earth to be immutable and static, where in the context of such an errant perception evolution would be difficult to understand.

But the earth is not immutable and static, it's constantly changing, as it has for more than four billion years; and as the earth changes so must life change and adapt – indeed, had life not possessed the ability to adapt, evolve, and change in response to the earth changing, life on this planet would have been extinguished long ago.

 

[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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bringing up religion is your version of the white flag.

I accept it.

That's all this thread is about. Disparaging evolution as a means of elevating creation based 'theories'.

 

[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.

What is in this thread is your belief that species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth.

Tell us how that would manifest itself?

For example, would it resemble the transporter phenomenom so integral to the stories in Star Trek?

Would there be that sparkly thing going on as the beast materialized? Or was there a puff of smoke,

the magician's stock in trade.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who would like to hear your personal description of the details of your belief.

This guy said it:

"Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.

Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium,...."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth."
That's what he said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

'Creationism' is religion, subjective and irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever concerning the science that is evolution.

Once again we see those hostile to the fact of evolution making their fundamental mistake: incorrectly perceiving the earth to be immutable and static, where in the context of such an errant perception evolution would be difficult to understand.

But the earth is not immutable and static, it's constantly changing, as it has for more than four billion years; and as the earth changes so must life change and adapt – indeed, had life not possessed the ability to adapt, evolve, and change in response to the earth changing, life on this planet would have been extinguished long ago.

"'Creationism' is religion, subjective and irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever concerning the science that is evolution."

I never mentioned creationism.

NYLiar did.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It's pretty clear, both that you are the lying imbecile, and that you are frustrated that I've, so very easily, revealed you as such.

1. Darwin's theory is false.

2. Bringing up creationism reveals that you know that I've proven it.

You brought up creationism when you claimed that species appeared on earth fully formed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

What is in this thread is your belief that species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth.

Tell us how that would manifest itself?

For example, would it resemble the transporter phenomenom so integral to the stories in Star Trek?

Would there be that sparkly thing going on as the beast materialized? Or was there a puff of smoke,

the magician's stock in trade.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who would like to hear your personal description of the details of your belief.

This guy said it:

"Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.

Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium,...."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth."
That's what he said.

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

 

[Hollie]

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.

What is in this thread is your belief that species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth.

Tell us how that would manifest itself?

For example, would it resemble the transporter phenomenom so integral to the stories in Star Trek?

Would there be that sparkly thing going on as the beast materialized? Or was there a puff of smoke,

the magician's stock in trade.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who would like to hear your personal description of the details of your belief.

This guy said it:

"Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.

Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium,...."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth."
That's what he said.

So, you don't understand your dishonesty by editing, parsing and manipulating what Gould wrote?

That's pretty typical for creationist hacks.

 

[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.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bringing up religion is your version of the white flag.

I accept it.

That's all this thread is about. Disparaging evolution as a means of elevating creation based 'theories'.

Really?

So, all of the scientists I've listed who "disparage Darwin's theory" are creationists?

You're revealing your ignorance again.

Lots of 'em are Marxists, as Gould was.


Let me slap some more in your kisser:


11. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies inevolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300


12. Regents Professor G. David Tilman, Ph.D., University of Michigan Ecological effects of human domination of the earth, including effects on ecosystem services of value to society; the ecological mechanisms controlling speciation, community assembly, species invasions and the evolution and maintenance of biodiversity; population ecology and theory of community dynamics and biodiversity; role of resource competition; biodiversity and ecosystem functioning; effects of habitat destruction.
Regents Professor G. David Tilman College of Biological Sciences

a. ...In an article published in Nature on May 11, 2000: "The existence of so great a diversity of species on Earth remains a mystery."
David Tilman, "Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity", Nature, vol. 405, May 11, 2000, p. 208



13. David B. KItts, Ph.D. (zoology) (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma Quotations by David B. Kitts

a. Kitts, a firm believer in evolution, is honest enough to admit that evidence for same is lacking: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


Which of 'em is lying?
You must know......after all, you're the resident expert on lying.

 

[NYcarbineer]

'Creationism' is religion, subjective and irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever concerning the science that is evolution.

Once again we see those hostile to the fact of evolution making their fundamental mistake: incorrectly perceiving the earth to be immutable and static, where in the context of such an errant perception evolution would be difficult to understand.

But the earth is not immutable and static, it's constantly changing, as it has for more than four billion years; and as the earth changes so must life change and adapt – indeed, had life not possessed the ability to adapt, evolve, and change in response to the earth changing, life on this planet would have been extinguished long ago.

"'Creationism' is religion, subjective and irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever concerning the science that is evolution."

I never mentioned creationism.

NYLiar did.

So you reject creationism as the better alternative explanation to evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

What is in this thread is your belief that species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth.

Tell us how that would manifest itself?

For example, would it resemble the transporter phenomenom so integral to the stories in Star Trek?

Would there be that sparkly thing going on as the beast materialized? Or was there a puff of smoke,

the magician's stock in trade.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who would like to hear your personal description of the details of your belief.

This guy said it:

"Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.

Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium,...."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth."
That's what he said.

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

Clearly you have no idea who Stephen J. Gould was, and why is is renown.

As such, you are less a liar, and more a moron.

 

[Hollie]

'Creationism' is religion, subjective and irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever concerning the science that is evolution.

Once again we see those hostile to the fact of evolution making their fundamental mistake: incorrectly perceiving the earth to be immutable and static, where in the context of such an errant perception evolution would be difficult to understand.

But the earth is not immutable and static, it's constantly changing, as it has for more than four billion years; and as the earth changes so must life change and adapt – indeed, had life not possessed the ability to adapt, evolve, and change in response to the earth changing, life on this planet would have been extinguished long ago.

"'Creationism' is religion, subjective and irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever concerning the science that is evolution."

I never mentioned creationism.

NYLiar did.

Of course you mentioned creationism.

Here, I'll "quote" what you wrote:

"Bringing up religion..... I accept it."

 

[PoliticalChic]

'Creationism' is religion, subjective and irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever concerning the science that is evolution.

Once again we see those hostile to the fact of evolution making their fundamental mistake: incorrectly perceiving the earth to be immutable and static, where in the context of such an errant perception evolution would be difficult to understand.

But the earth is not immutable and static, it's constantly changing, as it has for more than four billion years; and as the earth changes so must life change and adapt – indeed, had life not possessed the ability to adapt, evolve, and change in response to the earth changing, life on this planet would have been extinguished long ago.

"'Creationism' is religion, subjective and irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever concerning the science that is evolution."

I never mentioned creationism.

NYLiar did.

So you reject creationism as the better alternative explanation to evolution.

I never mentioned creationism.

You did.

My posts are strictly related to science.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bringing up religion is your version of the white flag.

I accept it.

That's all this thread is about. Disparaging evolution as a means of elevating creation based 'theories'.

So I'm right about Darwin being your strawman.



Really?

So, all of the scientists I've listed who "disparage Darwin's theory" are creationists?

You're revealing your ignorance again.

Lots of 'em are Marxists, as Gould was.


Let me slap some more in your kisser:


11. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies inevolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300


12. Regents Professor G. David Tilman, Ph.D., University of Michigan Ecological effects of human domination of the earth, including effects on ecosystem services of value to society; the ecological mechanisms controlling speciation, community assembly, species invasions and the evolution and maintenance of biodiversity; population ecology and theory of community dynamics and biodiversity; role of resource competition; biodiversity and ecosystem functioning; effects of habitat destruction.
Regents Professor G. David Tilman College of Biological Sciences

a. ...In an article published in Nature on May 11, 2000: "The existence of so great a diversity of species on Earth remains a mystery."
David Tilman, "Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity", Nature, vol. 405, May 11, 2000, p. 208



13. David B. KItts, Ph.D. (zoology) (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma Quotations by David B. Kitts

a. Kitts, a firm believer in evolution, is honest enough to admit that evidence for same is lacking: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


Which of 'em is lying?
You must know......after all, you're the resident expert on lying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bringing up religion is your version of the white flag.

I accept it.

That's all this thread is about. Disparaging evolution as a means of elevating creation based 'theories'.

So I'm right about Darwin being your strawman.



Really?

So, all of the scientists I've listed who "disparage Darwin's theory" are creationists?

You're revealing your ignorance again.

Lots of 'em are Marxists, as Gould was.


Let me slap some more in your kisser:


11. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies inevolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300


12. Regents Professor G. David Tilman, Ph.D., University of Michigan Ecological effects of human domination of the earth, including effects on ecosystem services of value to society; the ecological mechanisms controlling speciation, community assembly, species invasions and the evolution and maintenance of biodiversity; population ecology and theory of community dynamics and biodiversity; role of resource competition; biodiversity and ecosystem functioning; effects of habitat destruction.
Regents Professor G. David Tilman College of Biological Sciences

a. ...In an article published in Nature on May 11, 2000: "The existence of so great a diversity of species on Earth remains a mystery."
David Tilman, "Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity", Nature, vol. 405, May 11, 2000, p. 208



13. David B. KItts, Ph.D. (zoology) (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma Quotations by David B. Kitts

a. Kitts, a firm believer in evolution, is honest enough to admit that evidence for same is lacking: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


Which of 'em is lying?
You must know......after all, you're the resident expert on lying.

You neglected to include any comment in this post, which makes it the most intuitive of any of yours.

 

[irosie91]

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.

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

 

[Tuatara]

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


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.

Ever hear of quote mining. which you have done many times before. A very dishonest tatic.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis
Quote Mine Project Gould Eldredge and PunctuatedEquilibria Quotes

 

[Hollie]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bringing up religion is your version of the white flag.

I accept it.

That's all this thread is about. Disparaging evolution as a means of elevating creation based 'theories'.

So I'm right about Darwin being your strawman.



Really?

So, all of the scientists I've listed who "disparage Darwin's theory" are creationists?

You're revealing your ignorance again.

Lots of 'em are Marxists, as Gould was.


Let me slap some more in your kisser:


11. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies inevolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300


12. Regents Professor G. David Tilman, Ph.D., University of Michigan Ecological effects of human domination of the earth, including effects on ecosystem services of value to society; the ecological mechanisms controlling speciation, community assembly, species invasions and the evolution and maintenance of biodiversity; population ecology and theory of community dynamics and biodiversity; role of resource competition; biodiversity and ecosystem functioning; effects of habitat destruction.
Regents Professor G. David Tilman College of Biological Sciences

a. ...In an article published in Nature on May 11, 2000: "The existence of so great a diversity of species on Earth remains a mystery."
David Tilman, "Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity", Nature, vol. 405, May 11, 2000, p. 208



13. David B. KItts, Ph.D. (zoology) (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma Quotations by David B. Kitts

a. Kitts, a firm believer in evolution, is honest enough to admit that evidence for same is lacking: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)


Which of 'em is lying?
You must know......after all, you're the resident expert on lying.

Your fraudulent "quote" from Kitt is another fraud I corrected you previously as a misrepresentation by you creationist hacks.

Quote Mine Project Large Gaps

Quote #54 has the rest of the "quote" edited out by the creationist hacks you stole it from.