Wrong In So Very Many Ways

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,591
Reaction score
31,215
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."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.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.

And, there’s more.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,244
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,115
I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."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.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.

And, there’s more.
You're suffering from the disease of religionism.
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
24,593
Reaction score
8,094
Points
910
animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia,
Actually, not. The fundamental difference between natural and artificial selection is mutation.

Breeders can artificially select attributes that make for preferential survival. But, they can't create mutation, which occurs on the genetic level.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,591
Reaction score
31,215
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia,
Actually, not. The fundamental difference between natural and artificial selection is mutation.

Breeders can artificially select attributes that make for preferential survival. But, they can't create mutation, which occurs on the genetic level.

Actually, it is.

Both have been used by farmers, animal breeders, always with the same result: no new species.

Breeders who notice changes they would like to continue in the species go on to mate specific individuals.


Causing mutations sometimes allows beneficial changes, but rarely is it beneficial, and never results in speciation.


Please continue to read the posts I provide, as it will prove the above. I have only four more posts for the thread.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,244
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,115
One of the problems with religionism as applied to supernatural creationism is defining the varieties of creationist religionism.


Part 1: The Creation/Evolution Continuum in Christian Creationism


Creation and evolution are not a dichotomy, but ends of a continuum (see figure), and most creationist and evolutionist positions may be fit along this continuum (Scott 1999). The successive steps labelled in the figure are described below.

CREATION
    • Flat Earthers
    • Geocentrists
    • Young Earth Creationists
      • (Omphalos)
    • Old Earth Creationists
      • (Gap Creationism)
      • (Day-Age Creationism)
      • (Progressive Creationism)
      • (Intelligent Design Creationism)
    • Evolutionary Creationists
    • Theistic Evolutionists
    • Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists
    • Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,244
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,115
Flat Earthers


Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.

  • International Flat Earth Society, Box 2533, Lancaster, CA.
    Charles K. Johnson
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,244
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,115
I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:

“A caterpillar evolves into a butterfly.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science

Clearly, this requires yet another thread to save any other grads who imbibed this sort of ignorance. First, of course, this is not Darwinian nor any other sort of ‘evolution,’ it is metamorphosis; The most astounding metamorphosis is the aquatic tadpole becoming a terrestrial frog. It gives a peek into the range of characteristics embedded in DNA. I gave the link so every can see the sort of imbecile that believes he understands evolution.


What is evolution, and why Darwinism, the doctrine of government schooling, isn't an explanation for evolution.

1.In order to be a devotee of Darwinism, there are two usual requirements:
a. You must be a government school graduate
and
b. You must not have more than a superficial knowledge of evolution, genetics and biochemistry

…and maybe this:
c. You must be pre-programmed to have total faith….faith is the operative term….in the infallibility of the common knowledge.



2. Darwinism? The tenets are simply these:

a. Life began….the origin is not addressed, although Darwin does give credit here to a Creator (I know that puts a burr under the saddle of government school grads):
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

b. Darwinism begins from this point, claiming all life, all diversity began from this first simple life…our ‘common ancestor.’ ..."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.)

c. That first organism, and every one following, had random variations, some of which made it better equipped to survive, and so were passed on to succeeding generations, until, finally the totality of the variations resulted in a new, usually more complex, species.



That last line is the crux of the matter, because, although there has never been proof of that event occurring, it is taught in every level of indoctrination….er, schooling, as a proven fact.

You are certainly free to believe Darwinism, but realize it is an article of faith, as in any religion, not of fact.

An intelligent reader would wonder why, then, is it proclaimed as a proven fact? Good question.




3. The first clear indication that Darwin was incorrect is this historical fact: animal breeders have used natural and artificial selection for over four millennia, and while there have often been new and better characteristics in the stock they were breeding, never was a new species produced. That means that the improved organisms….maybe cows that give more milk, or fatter hogs….have always been able to breed with others of the original stock that didn’t show the improvement. As in, you can’t breed horses with hogs.


4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.



Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.

And, there’s more.
In connection with religionism, would you characterize yourself as a YEC’ist?


Young-Earth Creationism

Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah's Flood. However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system. Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris 1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today.

  • Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, CA.
    Home | The Institute for Creation Research
    Henry Morris (president emeritus), John D. Morris (president), Duane Gish, Steven A. Austin, Larry Vardiman, Kenneth B. Cumming, Andrew Snelling, ...
    Whitcomb, John C. & Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1961)
    Morris, Henry M., Scientific Creationism (Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1974, 1985)
    newsletter: Acts & Facts (includes Back to Genesis and Impact)

  • Answers in Genesis (AIG), Florence, KY.
    Answers in Genesis
    Ken Ham
    periodical: Creation Ex Nihilo

  • Creation Research Society (CRS), St. Joseph, MO.
    Creation Research Society
    D. Russell Humphreys, Wayne Friar, Donald B. DeYoung, Eugene F. Chaffin
    periodical: Creation Research Society Quarterly

  • Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL.
    Mission Statement
    Kent Hovind

  • Carl Baugh
    Creation Evidences Museum, Glen Rose, TX.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,591
Reaction score
31,215
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
5. We need to point out the importance of speciation….forming a new species…if it cannot be shown to happen….Darwinism has not been proven. That’s the test.



In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,”American Scientist85 (1997): 516-518.



Not changes….such as having a child with red hair in a family who all have dark hair….although a divorce lawyer may be involved forthwith. Only a new species (see item #4 above).



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



And if no such event has been shown, in a century and a half after Darwin was published, with more scientists working than in all time previous.....


.....and intelligent person would question why schools teach Darwin as proven fact.
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
24,593
Reaction score
8,094
Points
910
Flat Earthers


Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.

  • International Flat Earth Society, Box 2533, Lancaster, CA.
    Charles K. Johnson
In fact, I have a lot of respect for The Flat Earth Society because they sardonically illustrate a fundamental flaw in our scientific education.

It's a flaw that allows people like creationists and other pseudo-science proponents to exist.

The flaw is, we, as humans, tend to accept principles as true, even if we don't fundamentally understand them, because that is what we were taught.

The Flat Earther's choose for their object lesson, the nature of the shape of The Earth. Everyone knows the Earth is round, but how many people (precious few it turns out) can actually explain WHY we know it's round (or, more accurately, a spheroid)? It turns out the answer lies in non-Euclidean Geometry, but it's not an easily reproducible experiment.

Even people who have spent a life teaching and working in science would be hard put to accurately explain the proof of what nearly every person on Earth takes as gospel truth. The round shape of The Earth.

Flat Earthers, quite rightly, insist that if you believe something, even something that is true, without knowing why you believe it, it's no different from superstition.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
97,591
Reaction score
31,215
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
6. Let’s agree that Darwin wasn’t much of a scientist himself. Pretty darn good philosopher….and Darwinism is philosophy, not empirical, testable, experiment-based science. In fact, in a century and a half since he published, with the best scientists in the world working to prove his theory….to this day, no one has.

It is a truly elegant idea, seems plausible…..but there is actually a large body of evidence that proves the very opposite of Darwin’s idea. There are sites that show more complex species suddenly appearing before simpler ones.

I’d be happy to provide proof of that.





7. Now….as a scientist, he had another idea that was blown up, but he ignored the other idea:

“Modern agriculture has benefited from advances in biological science, but those advances have come largely from genetics, which originated with the work of Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel. Mendel found Darwin’s theory unpersuasive.” William Bateson, Mendel’s Principles of Heredity, p. 329. B. C. A. Windle, “Mendel, Mendelism,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X Available online (April 2006) at: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Mendel, Mendelism.


According to Mendel, “heredity involves the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism’s traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.” Although we now use the term ‘gene,’ the term didn’t come about until 1909.



“Darwin’s view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called “pangenesis.” The advantage of Darwin’s view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage of Darwin’s view was that it was false.” Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication ,Chapter XXVII. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, Chapter V. See also Chapters I and VI. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 171, 190, 210, 250–52. (comment by Jonathan Wells)




Today, no one believes that ‘use and disuse’ idea, soooo….where did those ‘variations’ come from?

So Darwin was as correct as folks who believe in Darwinism today: simply tricked.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,244
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,115
6. Let’s agree that Darwin wasn’t much of a scientist himself. Pretty darn good philosopher….and Darwinism is philosophy, not empirical, testable, experiment-based science. In fact, in a century and a half since he published, with the best scientists in the world working to prove his theory….to this day, no one has.

It is a truly elegant idea, seems plausible…..but there is actually a large body of evidence that proves the very opposite of Darwin’s idea. There are sites that show more complex species suddenly appearing before simpler ones.

I’d be happy to provide proof of that.





7. Now….as a scientist, he had another idea that was blown up, but he ignored the other idea:

“Modern agriculture has benefited from advances in biological science, but those advances have come largely from genetics, which originated with the work of Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel. Mendel found Darwin’s theory unpersuasive.” William Bateson, Mendel’s Principles of Heredity, p. 329. B. C. A. Windle, “Mendel, Mendelism,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X Available online (April 2006) at: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Mendel, Mendelism.


According to Mendel, “heredity involves the transmission of stable factors that determine an organism’s traits. Although the factors can be mixed and matched during reproduction, they remain discrete and unchanging from one generation to the next.” Although we now use the term ‘gene,’ the term didn’t come about until 1909.



“Darwin’s view of heredity was quite different. He believed that every cell in an organism produces “gemmules” that transmit characteristics to the next generation in a blending process he called “pangenesis.” The advantage of Darwin’s view was that gemmules could be changed by external conditions, or by use and disuse, and thus account for evolutionary change. The disadvantage of Darwin’s view was that it was false.” Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication ,Chapter XXVII. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Sixth Edition, Chapter V. See also Chapters I and VI. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 171, 190, 210, 250–52. (comment by Jonathan Wells)




Today, no one believes that ‘use and disuse’ idea, soooo….where did those ‘variations’ come from?

So Darwin was as correct as folks who believe in Darwinism today: simply tricked.
It’s always comedy gold when you “quote mine” creationist loons like Jonathan Wells.


Your silly ''quotes'' from Jonathan Wells, another dishonest hack at the Disco'tute, tells you what you need to know about ID'iot creationism / religionism.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

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

Wells happens to be one of the few Discotute creationist with legitimate credentials, a Ph.D. in biological science, which he completed – according to himself – for the sole purpose of “debunking” evolution. He has not yet succeeded in debunking evolution, of course, but has certainly been caught lying, gish galloping, data mangling, quote-mining, misrepresentingevidence, moving goalposts, and spewing nonsense a respectable number of times. A fantastic example of Wells trying to link Darwinism to Nazism is discussed here.

Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

True to form, Wells also wrote the “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution” for high school students (published by the Discovery Institute). They are answered here and here. Instead of trying to point to any shortcomings with the answers, though, Wells prefers to repeat the questions as if nothing has happened, since that is rhetorically more effective, and the goal is to win debates, not find out what's actually the case.

He also participated in the Kansas evolution hearings and has been featured on a Starbucks’s “The Way I See It”.

His newest book, “The Myth of Junk DNA”, discusses the phenomenon of junk DNA, a phenomenon that heartily offends Intelligent Design proponents insofar as it suggests that not everything in the universe has a purpose. The book is just as well-informed as his previous books, and responses to the first three chapters can be found here, here, and here.

Diagnosis: Appallingly inane crackpot, infuriatingly dense, and reprehensibly dishonest, Wells’s lack of insight and inability to even pretend to begin to understand anything before he starts criticizing it based on personal dislike, is of almost epic proportions. Yet he continues to be shockingly influential.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,244
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,115
6. Let’s agree that Darwin wasn’t much of a scientist himself. Pretty darn good philosopher….and Darwinism is philosophy, not empirical, testable, experiment-based science. In fact, in a century and a half since he published, with the best scientists in the world working to prove his theory….to this day, no one has.
Has your Harun Yahya madrassah prayer meeting just ended?


Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,736
Reaction score
1,078
Points
245
Location
Virginia
4. First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin: same species.

Bet the “is not” brigade, who hate criticism of Darwin, can’t find a single error above.

And, there’s more.
If two populations cannot interbreed NATURALLY, they are essentially different species.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
10,736
Reaction score
1,078
Points
245
Location
Virginia
I need to share this example of the abject stupidity that government school provides:
Conservatives have a reputation for being elitist and their GOP being the party of the rich. Thank you for ensuring that reputation continues to grow.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
36,244
Reaction score
3,620
Points
1,115
6. Let’s agree that Darwin wasn’t much of a scientist himself. Pretty darn good philosopher….and Darwinism is philosophy, not empirical, testable, experiment-based science. In fact, in a century and a half since he published, with the best scientists in the world working to prove his theory….to this day, no one has.
Let’s agree that religionism, when presented as a pathological disorder makes people a danger to themselves and others.

Religionism can make sufferers a danger to themselves and others.



Scientists have proved one of Charles Darwin’s theories of evolution – survival of the fittest – for the first time.

A researcher at St John’s College, University of Cambridge, found that mammal subspecies play a more important role in evolution than previously thought.

A species is a group of animals that can interbreed freely amongst themselves.

Some species contain subspecies – populations within a species that differ from each other with different physical traits and their own breeding ranges.

Northern giraffes have three subspecies that usually live in different locations to each other, while red foxes have the most subspecies – 45 known varieties – spread all over the world.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top