Darwin destroyed in new book

[Seymour Flops]

If Darwin mentioned something about a “Big Book of Evidence”, I would have thought you could provide a citation.


Darwin’s data and observations support the theory. That might be why the fuller running pretty confident tote of his work is, “the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection….”

“ or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. “

You should know that Darwin spent a great deal of study examining the differences in species within unique environments. While a comprehensive knowledge of gene science didn’t exist at the time, Darwin clearly described almost all genetic phenomena of importance.

no, he did not. Lol! Nobody talked about “genetics” until 1906.

His work noted that natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer. This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness.

Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever.

Ironic, that you lecture me about his book, when you clearly have not read it. If you had read it, you are not require a citation. If you had read it you would know that he mentioned a greater several times and worn the reader. That origin of species was only “an abstract.“

OK, I’ll help you out. I’ll not only give you a citation, I’ll give you the book to read:

On the Origin of Species

books.google.com

Darwin talks about origin of species, being an abstract ahead of the supposedly coming larger work in the second paragraph of the introduction, for Pete sake. Clearly you have not read origin of species.

Do you believe that the gods invented the cancer cell?

I never said anything about “gods“. You asked before if the designer designed cancer cells. I answered that if there was a designer, that designer design cancer cells along with every other living thing.

Did you have a point about that?

 

[Hollie]

“ or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. “

no, he did not. Lol! Nobody talked about “genetics” until 1906.

Ironic, that you lecture me about his book, when you clearly have not read it. If you had read it, you are not require a citation. If you had read it you would know that he mentioned a greater several times and worn the reader. That origin of species was only “an abstract.“

OK, I’ll help you out. I’ll not only give you a citation, I’ll give you the book to read:

On the Origin of Species

books.google.com

Darwin talks about origin of species, being an abstract ahead of the supposedly coming larger work in the second paragraph of the introduction, for Pete sake. Clearly you have not read origin of species.

I never said anything about “gods“. You asked before if the designer designed cancer cells. I answered that if there was a designer, that designer design cancer cells along with every other living thing.

Did you have a point about that?

Yes. You needed to be corrected as the title to Darwin’s book specifically included the term, “Natural Selection”. How did you miss that?

As you clearly didn’t read Darwin’s work, what he wrote was that, “My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three more years to complete it,….”

The reason you refused to provide a citation is because you knew your description of Darwin’s writing was a fraud. There was never any suggestion of a “Big Book of Evidence”, as you wrote.

LOL. As I noted, “While a comprehensive knowledge of gene science didn’t exist at the time, Darwin clearly described almost all genetic phenomena of importance.” lacking a science vocabulary, you wouldn’t be aware that Darwin’s description of changes in population is a function of genes and genetic drift.


Ironic. You hope to lecture others on some work to attribute to Darwin which you describe as a “Big Book of Evidence”, yet you still refuse to provide any citation to such a book.

Where is the exact citation? You keep sidestepping and deflecting.

It seems you’re desperate to try and deny the various sciences that all affirm natural selection. Organisms evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. The data confirms that and the evidence shows a process of descent with modification. That is Darwin’s theory clearly spelled out. That is the problem for religionists.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes. You needed to be corrected as the title to Darwin’s book specifically included the term, “Natural Selection”. How did you miss that?

The book is commonly referred to by people familiar with by a shortened title.

As you clearly didn’t read Darwin’s work, what he wrote was that, “My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three more years to complete it,….”

The reason you refused to provide a citation is because you knew your description of Darwin’s writing was a fraud. There was never any suggestion of a “Big Book of Evidence”, as you wrote.

To think, I was thinking of putting you on ignore becuase your repetitiveness was so boring. I didn't know you were going to put on a show of self-humiliation by displaying your ignorance over and over.

LOL. As I noted, “While a comprehensive knowledge of gene science didn’t exist at the time, Darwin clearly described almost all genetic phenomena of importance.” lacking a science vocabulary, you wouldn’t be aware that Darwin’s description of changes in population is a function of genes and genetic drift.

Sounds like it was Darwin who lacked a science vocabulary. Not his fault, he only had a Bachelors in General Studies before he decided to become a "scientist" to avoid become a country parson.

Ironic. You hope to lecture others on some work to attribute to Darwin which you describe as a “Big Book of Evidence”, yet you still refuse to provide any citation to such a book.

Where is the exact citation? You keep sidestepping and deflecting.

If you mean an ISBN, it was never published in Darwin's time. But you can find it here:

Amazon product

I know you'll want to read this great work of Darwin's waiting in vain for the promised evidence. If $27 is out of your price range let me know and I'll start a gofundme for you.

It seems you’re desperate to try and deny the various sciences that all affirm natural selection. Organisms evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. The data confirms that and the evidence shows a process of descent with modification. That is Darwin’s theory clearly spelled out. That is the problem for religionists.

You saying it does not make it true. Natural Selection is an unproven hypothesis. Smart people have stopped trying to prove it, since they have no evidence. Dump people simply insult non-believers, hard-core religionists that they are.

 

[scruffy]

Natural Selection is an unproven hypothesis.

No it isn't.

It is a repeatable and independently verifiable reality.

It happens thousands of times a day in every medical lab in the country.

Smart people have stopped trying to prove it, since they have no evidence.

Horseshit.

Dump people simply insult non-believers, hard-core religionists that they are.

Religion is based on faith.

Biophysical evolution is not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No it isn't.

He knows. He does this with every screenname.

 

[Hollie]

The book is commonly referred to by people familiar with by a shortened title.

To think, I was thinking of putting you on ignore becuase your repetitiveness was so boring. I didn't know you were going to put on a show of self-humiliation by displaying your ignorance over and over.


Sounds like it was Darwin who lacked a science vocabulary. Not his fault, he only had a Bachelors in General Studies before he decided to become a "scientist" to avoid become a country parson.

If you mean an ISBN, it was never published in Darwin's time. But you can find it here:

Amazon product

I know you'll want to read this great work of Darwin's waiting in vain for the promised evidence. If $27 is out of your price range let me know and I'll start a gofundme for you.

You saying it does not make it true. Natural Selection is an unproven hypothesis. Smart people have stopped trying to prove it, since they have no evidence. Dump people simply insult non-believers, hard-core religionists that they are.

The book is commonly referred to by people familiar with by a shortened title.

To think, I was thinking of putting you on ignore becuase your repetitiveness was so boring. I didn't know you were going to put on a show of self-humiliation by displaying your ignorance over and over.


Sounds like it was Darwin who lacked a science vocabulary. Not his fault, he only had a Bachelors in General Studies before he decided to become a "scientist" to avoid become a country parson.

If you mean an ISBN, it was never published in Darwin's time. But you can find it here:

Amazon product

I know you'll want to read this great work of Darwin's waiting in vain for the promised evidence. If $27 is out of your price range let me know and I'll start a gofundme for you.

You saying it does not make it true. Natural Selection is an unproven hypothesis. Smart people have stopped trying to prove it, since they have no evidence. Dump people simply insult non-believers, hard-core religionists that they are.

Yes. How uncomfortable that “Natural Selection” is in the title.

You can certainly put me on ignore. That won’t help to alleviate the obvious errors and falsehoods you have posted.

it seems you have quite the personal grudge against Darwin. His basic principles of natural selection and descent with modification have only been better confirmed over time.

You saying it does not make it false. Your religious devotion to railing against natural selection and descent with modification is pretty typical for the hyper-religious.

It was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record the more different the animals represented were from those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups. Darwin took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time and attempted to explain them in what today we would consider a scientific manner.

It’s unfortunate for you that nothing in the facts points toward supernaturalism or a 6,000 year old planet. You may revise the facts but that changes nothing,

 

[Seymour Flops]

No it isn't.

It is a repeatable and independently verifiable reality.

It happens thousands of times a day in every medical lab in the country.

Yes, thanks to those highly intelligent medical scientist that design those experiments.

Religion is based on faith.

Biophysical evolution is not.

Darwinism is a religion. That’s why it’s adherents act so cultlike when somebody offers the slightest criticism.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, thanks to those highly intelligent medical scientist that design those experiments.

Darwinism is a religion. That’s why it’s adherents act so cultlike when somebody offers the slightest criticism.

Actually, It was only during the decades after his death that Darwin's basic theory was combined with the new science of population genetics which convinced biologists that Natural Selection provides the best answers toward explaining the biological diversity on the planet. The principle of the scientific method and process is that such theories are tested and open to peer review.

Religionism, on the other hand, explains only your fears and superstitions.

 

[AHZ]

No, I can just ignore your attempt to beg for attention. So I will.

This is why you're losing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is why you're losing.

I don't subscribe to your self-gratiating fantasies. And I don't care about your efforts to beg for attention by talking about me.

 

[AHZ]

I don't subscribe to your self-gratiating fantasies. And I don't care about your efforts to beg for attention by talking about me.

this is how your run from truth.

pearl clutching.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

this is how your run from truth.

pearl clutching.....

Haha, it's like you have a little index card rolidex of dusty boilerplate troll turds.

 

[AHZ]

Haha, it's like you have a little index card rolidex of dusty boilerplate troll turds.

It actually utilizes pez dispenser technology.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It actually utilizes pez dispenser technology.

Excellent!

Now find the Randian pukes and explain to them that Darwinism is not a way to run a society.

 

[AHZ]

Excellent!

Now find the Randian pukes and explain to them that Darwinism is not a way to run a society.

eh, what can I do....

these brutes lack nuance.

 

[scruffy]

Yes, thanks to those highly intelligent medical scientist that design those experiments.

Darwinism is a religion. That’s why it’s adherents act so cultlike when somebody offers the slightest criticism.

Bullshit.

Stop talking shit, and address the 80 MILLION pieces of converging scientific evidence from 18 independent lines of inquiry.

 

[Hector12]

DARWIN'S BLUFF

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend​

The Myth was not the man. A new book
shows this in Darwin’s own words.

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend – CEH

crev.info

View attachment 932377

Anyone can find something on the internet they agree with. If you cannot explain how Darwin was mistaken using your own words, you do not understand it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Actually, It was only during the decades after his death that Darwin's basic theory was combined with the new science of population genetics which convinced biologists that Natural Selection provides the best answers toward explaining the biological diversity on the planet. The principle of the scientific method and process is that such theories are tested and open to peer review.

Religionism, on the other hand, explains only your fears and superstitions.

Oh! I did not realize that experiments had confirmed Darwin’s theory of speciation through natural selection! Please link me to those “speciation through natural selection experiments,”

 

[Seymour Flops]

Bullshit.

Stop talking shit, and address the 80 MILLION pieces of converging scientific evidence from 18 independent lines of inquiry.

All 80 billion? That sounds like a lot. Why don’t you tell me the 10 best pieces of evidence for speciation through natural selection and see if I can refute them or change my mind.

Remember evidence for speciation through, natural selection, not for evolution by any method.

 

[scruffy]

All 80 billion? That sounds like a lot. Why don’t you tell me the 10 best pieces of evidence for speciation through natural selection and see if I can refute them or change my mind.

Remember evidence for speciation through, natural selection, not for evolution by any method.

Denied.

Do your own damn research.

Until you do, you'll be considered an ignorant fool.

This is the SCIENCE forum, fool.

Not the bullshit belief forum.