# Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"



## abu afak (Nov 6, 2013)

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

*Evolution as Fact and Theory*
by Stephen Jay Gould
*StephenJayGould.org*
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994



> "...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.
> 
> *The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts* before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
> First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
> ...


`


----------



## S.J. (Nov 6, 2013)

Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to prove anything.


----------



## jwoodie (Nov 6, 2013)

Contrary to the OP's opinion, fact does mean absolute certainty (e.g., Earth revolves around Sun).  Moreover, resorting to word mincing between "what" and "how" indicates a shallowness of thought.

Ironically, the least informed Darwinists (unable to distinguish between intra- and inter-species differentiation) are also the most strident proponents.  No reputable biologist has been able to put forth a credible theory as to how one species can mutate into an entirely different species.  We may ultimately determine an explanation, but we are not there yet.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 6, 2013)

There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 6, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to prove anything.



You missed the point.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 6, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> Contrary to the OP's opinion, fact does mean absolute certainty (e.g., Earth revolves around Sun).  Moreover, resorting to word mincing between "what" and "how" indicates a shallowness of thought.
> 
> Ironically, the least informed Darwinists (unable to distinguish between intra- and inter-species differentiation) are also the most strident proponents.  No reputable biologist has been able to put forth a credible theory as to how one species can mutate into an entirely different species.  We may ultimately determine an explanation, but we are not there yet.



Another swing and a miss!


----------



## PredFan (Nov 6, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.



SWOOOOOOSSSHHH!

Three strikes and you are all out.


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 6, 2013)

When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.


----------



## jwoodie (Nov 6, 2013)

Shallowness noted.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 6, 2013)

If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".

Go ahead provide us a direct link to proof that one species of mammals has ever evolved into one or more entirely different species.


----------



## PredFan (Nov 6, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".
> 
> Go ahead provide us a direct link to proof that one species of mammals has ever evolved into one or more entirely different species.



That is totally missing the point of the OP. Again.


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 6, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".
> 
> Go ahead provide us a direct link to proof that one species of mammals has ever evolved into one or more entirely different species.



Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. It's our #2 and #2 and #13 in chimps. So whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of _Homo sapiens_ and  _Pan troglodytes_.

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.. I mean, that's just as feasible. I'd consider giving us intelligence and evidence pointing one way but not really meaning it as kind of a dick move, but God works in mysterious ways.


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 6, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> Shallowness noted.



I was afraid I was being too subtle.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 6, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".
> ...



We are 90 percent compatible with mice so I guess we once were related to mice too right?

There is no evidence that man and ape evolved from a single species. That is conjecture and assumption. There is NO EVIDENCE that ANY mammal has ever evolved from a completely different species. Reputable scientists even admit this is true.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 6, 2013)

PredFan said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".
> ...



The op is claiming that evolution from one mammal species to one or more totally different species is fact. That is a lie. It is NOT true. There is no evidence of that. No reputable scientist makes that claim anywhere.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 6, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. *The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.*


Which actually is 'adaption' not evolution.  .


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 6, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.



The fossils of Karoo.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.
> ...



Do not prove evolution of one species of mammals into one or more different species. Keep on lying.


----------



## S.J. (Nov 7, 2013)

PredFan said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to prove anything.
> ...


No I didn't.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2013)

http://bcrc.bio.umass.edu/courses/f...mo-Triassic/12b-4_P-T_Synapsid_Extinction.pdf


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 7, 2013)

abu afak said:


> Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
> You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
> Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
> You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.
> ...








1. Be clear: nothing I ever do is dishonest.


2. This is exactly the debate I wanted to initiate, because it exposes the fallacy of Darwinian evolution.

As several posters have stated there is zero evidence of speciation.

3. Both Darwin and Gould admitted same.


a. "*THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists*for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwickas a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be *fatal to the theory of evolution* through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be "* the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."*


*Darwin.*



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

b. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. *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.*
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"...*.a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."*

*Gould*

So.....are they being 'dishonest' .....or are you?


Now then.....how about we move on to the more significant question....why folks like you are so intimately wedded to a false doctrine?


There is an answer beyond psychosis......


If you don't understand the reason.....ask me nicely and I will OP that which will set you free: the truth.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2013)

How did bats "evolve"?


----------



## editec (Nov 7, 2013)

We get hung up on the word  EVOLUTION.

WE ought to use the word CHANGE.

Evolution implies advancement and suggests that improvements are what's going on.

I think that's an overstatement.

Bacteria that are alive today are as ADVANCED as we are, genetically speaking.

Now does anyone who thinks that the THEORYU of EVOLUTION is nonsense want to make the case that there is no evidence that there has been no CHANGE in the flora and fauna on the earth?

And if there has been CHANGE in the populations over time?

HOW DOES ONE EXPLAIN THOSE DIFFERENT SPECIES THAT HAVE COME AND GONE OVER TIME?

Come on not, anitDarwinists...tell us why there have been so many species that no longer exist on earth.

Where did they come from? GOD MAGIC?

I do not care what you DO NOT BELIEVE, I want to know what you_ do believe._


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How did bats "evolve"?



Ever see a 'flying' squirrel?


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How did bats "evolve"?
> ...


They don't actually "fly". 

They extend their loose skin and do a short distance downward glide between trees.  ..


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How did bats "evolve"?
> ...





If one ever needed proof that you are clueless on the subject under discussion....

....this post of yours would be dispositive.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
> ...




Ah yes, another 'I am the truth, the way, and the light'. Silly person, so full of twaddle and nonsense. This is the 21st Century, not the 18th. We are using our knowledge of how evolution works to create life forms that do things they never did before. When a science progresses to the point that you are engineering with the basic precepts of that science, in this case, biology and evolution, those precepts are damned robust.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How did bats "evolve"?
> ...



Uh huh

Bats evolved from squirrels?

When did that squirrel develop echolocation because its the ability to both create the pitch and the ears to pick it up.

Which squirrels use echolocation


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yep. And where is that loose skin located? And how is the anatomy of a bat with relationship to the skin they use for flying? Just as with the feathered dinosaurs, it had to begin somewhere. And we can see among living creatures how the eye developed from a photosensitive spot on bacteria to the wonder that is the eye of a raptor today.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Sheesh, ever the dingbat. No, bats and squirrels are both rodents. And the present squirrel has no need for the echolocation, but I am willing to bet, has the basic genetics to develop that ability should future conditions and chance push the squirrels descendents in that direction.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...






So....I post the testimony of both Darwin, of the eponymous theory, and the Harvard 'expert' who has written copiously about 'evolution,'.....and you link to the post....

....then do what all of you supporters of the fake theory do....

....you ignore the import.


Why is that?



'Cause you have no cogent response?



But I do like the  'I am the truth, the way, and the light' reference to moi......

Keep it up.


----------



## abu afak (Nov 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *How did bats "evolve"?*





CrusaderFrank said:


> Uh huh
> Bats evolved from squirrels?
> When did that squirrel develop echolocation because its the ability to both create the pitch and the ears to pick it up.
> Which squirrels use echolocation


Oh yes, why don't you go with _"Duh, I don't know so it must be too complex for nature/God did it, Duh"_

*Why don't you Look it up you DOPE?*
It's So easy these days.

Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Bats are mammals of the order Chiroptera (/ka&#618;&#712;r&#594;pt&#601;r&#601;/; from the Greek &#967;&#949;&#943;&#961; - cheir, "hand"[2] and &#960;&#964;&#949;&#961;&#972;&#957; - pteron, "wing"[3]) whose forelimbs form webbed wings, making them the only mammals naturally capable of true and sustained flight. By contrast, other mammals said to fly, such as flying squirrels, gliding possums, and colugos, can only glide for short distances. Bats do not flap their entire forelimbs, as birds do, but instead flap their spread-out digits,[4] which are very long and covered with a thin membrane or patagium.
> Bats represent about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide, with about 1,240 bat species divided into two suborders: the less specialized and largely fruit-eating megabats, or flying foxes, and the highly specialized and echolocating microbats.[5] About 70% of bat species are insectivores. Most of the rest are frugivores, or fruit eaters. A few species, such as the fish-eating bat, feed from animals other than insects, with the vampire bats being hematophagous...."


Sure, "God made 1240 Different bat Species!"

Wiki continues: Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *Classification and Evolution*
> 
> Bats are mammals. In many languages, the word for "bat" is cognate with the word for "mouse": for example, chauve-souris ("bald-mouse") in French, murciélago ("blind mouse") in Spanish, saguzahar ("old mouse") in Basque, &#1083;&#1077;&#1090;&#1091;&#1095;&#1072;&#1103; &#1084;&#1099;&#1096;&#1100; ("flying mouse") in Russian, slijepi mi&#353; ("blind mouse") in Bosnian, nahkhiir ("leather mouse") in Estonian, vlermuis (winged mouse) in Afrikaans, from the Dutch word vleermuis. An older English name for bats is flittermice, which matches their name in other Germanic languages (for example German Fledermaus and Swedish fladdermus).[10] Bats were formerly thought to have been most closely related to the flying lemurs, treeshrews, and primates,[11] but recent molecular cladistics research indicates they actually belong to Laurasiatheria, a diverse group also containing Carnivora and Artiodactyla.[12][13]
> 
> ...



THAT'S how Bats evolved.
The reason you don't believe in evolution is you are Willfully Ignorant. (and to some degree unwillfully)
`


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 7, 2013)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > How did bats "evolve"?
> ...




Interesting that after all that 'pretend,' we obviate same with this:
"Little fossil evidence is available to help map the evolution of bats,..."



Next.


----------



## rdean (Nov 7, 2013)

Funny right wingers want to use "science" to prove "mysticism" is REAL.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 7, 2013)

rdean said:


> Funny right wingers want to use "science" to prove "mysticism" is REAL.





Pssst....deanie.....this topic is way over your head.

So sorry to have distracted your attention from the 24-hour cartoon network.


----------



## jwoodie (Nov 7, 2013)

Darwinism is a sub-cult within the destitute religion of Atheism, which justifies its existence solely by criticizing other belief systems.  This thread is a perfect example:  Rather than explaining their belief in gradual speciation, Darwinists merely attack anyone who disagrees with them.  I suspect that, within their covens, little or no dissent is tolerated.


----------



## jwoodie (Nov 7, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".
> ...



Ironically, your thesis only works in an Adam and Eve scenario.  How else did two chromosomes fuse, Dr. Frankenstein?


----------



## rdean (Nov 7, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Funny right wingers want to use "science" to prove "mysticism" is REAL.
> ...



It's a sad state of affairs when you can learn more about science from the Cartoon Network than you can from listening to Right Wingnut Master Debators.


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 7, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Well, I'm convinced. Magical Sky Daddy did it.


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 7, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> Darwinism is a sub-cult within the destitute religion of Atheism, which justifies its existence solely by criticizing other belief systems.  This thread is a perfect example:  Rather than explaining their belief in gradual speciation, Darwinists merely attack anyone who disagrees with them.  I suspect that, within their covens, little or no dissent is tolerated.



I suspect you don't read many scientific journals if you think there is no dissent or infighting. Evolution is accepted, but the mechanisms are up for debate. I understand that among the cdesign proponentists there can be no dissent, after all the Big Book of Bronze Age Mythology by Magical Sky Daddy is what it is and your talking points are pre-approved by the DiscoTute, but among scientists there is plenty of infighting, only without the burning of witches.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 7, 2013)

rdean said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...





Now deanie....you'd be so very much more informed if you learned your science from me.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 7, 2013)

Hey, OP!


Earlier I wrote:
"Now then.....how about we move on to the more significant question....why folks like you are so intimately wedded to a false doctrine?


There is an answer beyond psychosis......


If you don't understand the reason.....ask me nicely and I will OP that which will set you free: the truth."




Don't you want to ask me to write said OP?

It would move you toward rectitude....

...just sayin'....


----------



## jwoodie (Nov 7, 2013)

I'd rather be a Master Debater than a Whiny Namecaller.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 7, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Darwinism is a sub-cult within the destitute religion of Atheism, which justifies its existence solely by criticizing other belief systems.  This thread is a perfect example:  Rather than explaining their belief in gradual speciation, Darwinists merely attack anyone who disagrees with them.  I suspect that, within their covens, little or no dissent is tolerated.
> ...





This is great:
"Evolution is accepted, but the mechanisms are up for debate."


So.....actually, what are you accepting? 


 George Simpson, another eminent evolutionist, wrote in 1964 that the book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject. 
(Mayr and Simpson are quoted by Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, p. 105.)


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 7, 2013)

Steven_R said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Darwinism is a sub-cult within the destitute religion of Atheism, which justifies its existence solely by criticizing other belief systems.  This thread is a perfect example:  Rather than explaining their belief in gradual speciation, Darwinists merely attack anyone who disagrees with them.  I suspect that, within their covens, little or no dissent is tolerated.
> ...






"...your talking points are pre-approved by the DiscoTute, but among scientists there is plenty of infighting, only without the burning of witches."


Of course, the very opposite is true.

Here....let me prove that:



The following details the fate of any scientist who dares to buck the orthodoxy.
a.	 Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. *The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology,* Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

b.	 the first *peer-reviewed *article to appear in a technical biology journal *laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.*

c.	Mr. Sternberg's  future as a researcher is in jeopardy He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology,* his religious and political beliefs questioned*. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."




d.	Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he *cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford. *

e.	 He points, for example, to *the Cambrian explosion *530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.

f.	*it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. *Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage."  the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. 

According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....*He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? *What is his political affiliation?'" The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

g.	*Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. *One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."





h.	The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

i.	Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. *They banish certain ideas *from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.




j.	*Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. *The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.                                                              The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com



Great, huh?

And you say "...but among scientists there is plenty of infighting, only without the burning of witches."


Right.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2013)

rdean said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Can you explain to me how a flying squirrel evolved into a bat?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Why did bats need to evolve echolocation?  And again, it's not like growing nose hairs, there are a number of organs that all have to "evolve" simultaneously for it to work


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...









For my next trick -- echolocation


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





"...bats and squirrels are both rodents."

Actually, not.

1. Bats are not rodents, although many people think of them as mice with wings, and indeed, the members of the genus Myotis (including the common Little Brown Bat, Myotis lucifugus) are called mouse-eared bats.  But they only have one pup per year (a few have twins or up to four), and live twelve toothirty or more years, depending on the species.  Bats are so unique that they have been placed in their own order, Order Chiroptera, meaning "hand-wing". 
Bats & Evolution - Survival of the Created

2. ... of the squirrel family, Sciuridae, which belongs to the order Rodentia, the rodents.
Squirrels (Family Sciuridae)



Now, while you have made a factual error, as shown above....the following is a major error in concept:

"And the present squirrel has no need for the echolocation, but I am willing to bet, has the basic genetics to develop that ability should future conditions and chance push the squirrels descendents (sic) in that direction."

The idea that organisms develop functions based on need, known as LaMarckian theory, has long been discarded by science.

"Lamarck is best known for his Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, first presented in 1801 ...: If an organism changes during life in order to adapt to its environment, those changes are passed on to its offspring. *He said that change is made by what the organisms want or need*"
Evolution



Rocks....you really shouldn't pretend any knowledge of science.

Just tryin' to help you.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 2, 2013)

abu afak said:


> Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
> You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
> Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
> You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.
> ...


PoliticalChic continues her DISHONEST and Misleading OUT-of-Context Quote snippets.
She is UNABLE to debate anything.
She is Mum/completely Ignorant save for posting/Plagiarizing goofy 'quotes' from a creationist website.
and adding Retarded extra vertical spacing for the illusion of more content. 
`


----------



## rdean (Dec 14, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.



Right wingers have this new pseudo scientific idea, similar to "irreducible complexity", called "kinds".  A lion is a "kind" of a cat and a tiger is a "kind" of a cat so that's why they can have offspring. 

I think Republicans are a "kind" of a tard, but then, I'm not a scientist.  Course, neither are they.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 14, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
> ...


You KNOW full well that Gould HIMSELF believes in Darwinian evolution and obviously Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT contradict it.

"sudden" in geologic terms could be Tens/Hundreds of Thousands, or even  a Million of Years. It is NOT a creation event.

GOULD Himself:



> *"..Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened.
> We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of Evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
> 
> Creationists Pervert and Caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
> ...


Despite this YOU use/ABUSE Gould as supporting you.
You know this, I have posted it often, yet You still LIE and Mislead. 

Your posts are [always] Intentionally DISHONEST in this respect.
You try to jump on Uncontexted, Seemingly contradictory, snippets that are NOT so.
YOU LIE Hourly.
YOU MISLEAD in the name of Christ/Religion.
If there is a god he would be Appalled at your persistently Dishonest posts.


(EDIT and as always, I edited PoliticalThic's post to Sane single or double spacing from her Retarded 3/4/5/6 Vertical line Gaps meant to try and HOG/SPAM/BURY more of the board. Similar motive to her Repetitive string topics.)

`


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Dec 19, 2013)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.





Wrong. There is plenty of cladistic and genetic evidence that species of mammals have evolved into other species of mammals.

You are simply ignorant of this evidence.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


----------



## S.J. (Dec 19, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.
> ...


There is absolutely none.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Dec 20, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



The fossil record is not evidence?


----------



## S.J. (Dec 20, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...


No.  It's speculation.


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Dec 21, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



You can say you don't believe what the fossil record tells us.  You can even say it's not proof.

But if you claim the fossil record is not evidence, you are telling a ridiculous falsehood.  If there was no evidence as you falsely claim, there would be no Theory of Evolution.

The fossil record alone is  enough evidence to support the Theory of Evolution which is the fundamental basis of all biological science.  It's accepted as evidence by 99.99% of professional biologists.

Has God fooled the near unanimous consensus of scientists worldwide?


----------



## abu afak (Dec 21, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to prove anything.





S.J. said:


> No I didn't.





S.J. said:


> There is absolutely none.





S.J. said:


> No.  It's speculation.


And THAT Ladies and gentlemen is the sum total of TROLL S.J.'s contribution to this string and demonstrates his knowledge of this and all other science topics. -0-

Hey buddy.. WTF are you doing here is all you can do is say "no"?
`


----------



## S.J. (Dec 21, 2013)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...


When you have some proof let me know.  Until then, it's speculation.


----------



## S.J. (Dec 21, 2013)

abu afak said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to prove anything.
> ...


Where's your proof, asshole?  Post it or STFU.


----------



## abu afak (Dec 21, 2013)

S.J. said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Theories don't get "Proved" DOPE. 

However, There is PLENTY of EVIDENCE and some already HAS been posted.
You rejected it out of hand as 'speculation'. 
You are not Only Ignorant of facts, you are Too Stupid to even recognize them when posted.
You are - um REMAIN - a ONE-LINE TROLL and a discredit/BLIGHT on this message board.

UPDATE on the ALL the posts of NONconversant 70 IQ TROLL S.J., in this string:


S.J. said:


> Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to prove anything.





S.J. said:


> No I didn't.





S.J. said:


> There is absolutely none.





S.J. said:


> No.  It's speculation.





			
				S.J. said:
			
		

> Where's your proof, asshole?  Post it or STFU.




`


----------



## S.J. (Dec 21, 2013)

abu afak said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


It's only "evidence" to a simple-minded fuckwad like you.  You would look at a dog and a cat and say "Well, they both have 4 legs, a tail, and fur, therefore they are related".  You are such an ignorant douchebag.  And you have not presented even one fact.  You post somebody else's speculation and call it fact.  You are one gullible fucking idiot.  Last chance, post some proof.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 21, 2013)

Atoms magically randomly arranged themselves into nucleobases and magically realized that 4 different types were optimum, then they magically arranged themselves into DNA...it's just all to ridiculous to even contemplate


----------



## Smilodonfatalis (Dec 22, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Ah, so now you are backtracking from claiming there is no evidence to saying there is no proof.

Here's some evidence...29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

This is evidence, not speculation.  You can acknowledge my link or continue to spout your ignorance.  I'm not wasting any more time on you.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 2, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *Atoms magically randomly arranged themselves into nucleobases* and magically realized that 4 different types were optimum, then they magically arranged themselves into DNA...it's just all to ridiculous to even contemplate


Not at all.
Atoms and inorganic molecules routinely arrange themselves into Crystaline, Magnetic, and other Organized structure.
There are even self-replicating inorganic molecules that may indeed be precursors of life.
`


----------



## S.J. (Jan 2, 2014)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Smilodonfatalis said:
> ...


To you, anything that supports your theory is "evidence", whether it has any credibility or not.  If your evidence doesn't pan out, it isn't really evidence, is it?  You can call it evidence, but if it leads to a dead end, as it has so far, you've got nothing more than speculation.  Try again.


----------



## S.J. (Jan 2, 2014)

abu afak said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > *Atoms magically randomly arranged themselves into nucleobases* and magically realized that 4 different types were optimum, then they magically arranged themselves into DNA...it's just all to ridiculous to even contemplate
> ...


Well, when you have something more solid than "may indeed be", let us know.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 2, 2014)

S.J. said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


I was answering a/another clown that was suggesting any inorganic organization was "magic".
Like you always are, he was wrong/loony.
When YOU have something more than.. Nothing.. let Us now.
I Have Evidence: god (incl the vast majority of deities that aren't Your god or Contradict him!) have None.
`


----------



## S.J. (Jan 2, 2014)

abu afak said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


I don't need to have anything because I'm not trying to sell anything.  You are, and the burden of proof is on you.  If you had any, you would have posted it by now.  In lieu of proof, you find comments by others who agree with you and call that "evidence" and somehow that's supposed to convince everyone that your theory holds water.  You have nothing and call it something.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 2, 2014)

S.J. said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


I met the Burden of Fact with regards my answer to Crusader Frank/Rabbit.

In regards the overall issue, *I have met the Burden, which is NOT "Proof" but "Preponderance of the EVIDENCE": For which Evolution has an Overwhelming amount vs God NONE*. Scientific Theories, including Gravity, do NOT/NEVER get "proved" they get affirmed over time.
You god-ist clowns abuse the same Dishonest semantic FALLACY daily.

I meet the Preponderance/Overwhelming Evidence Burden ALL the time:
See: http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-r...ve-to-say-about-evolution-11.html#post8386977
For Yesterday's.

You LOSE again Noah.
Try DuhitMustBeAllah.org 
`


----------



## S.J. (Jan 2, 2014)

abu afak said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


You don't have shit.  Your "overwhelming evidence" doesn't hold water and you know it.  That's why you resort to personal attacks and try to change the subject to religion when you fail to make your case.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 2, 2014)

S.J. said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...


Besides what's ALREADY in this string, such as the OP, a Dufus like you dare not touch, there's the post I linked to above:


abu afak said:


> First: Please Note Vox above had NO ANSWER to the destruction of his False "proof" standard when I Blew it all to hell with the "Plenty of/Overwhelming Evidence" standard.
> Again: Theories don't get proved, only continually affirmed.
> Vox was Reduced to his ultimately Necessary Lost state in this debate- Empty, otherwise contentLESS cursing like the Stupid ahole he is.
> 
> ...



OK beneath-Dufus - YOUR TURN.
Put up or Shut up You DOPE.
You know NOTHING. You post NO CONTENT Here, you're just a two-bit disagreeable ahole.
`


----------



## S.J. (Jan 2, 2014)

abu afak said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Could you post something other than someone else's speculation?  Face it, Dude, you've got nothing.  Nothing but name calling.  No facts, no evidence.  The more you rant and rave, the more foolish you look.  I'll bet you also believe in Global Warming and think Obamacare is great.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 3, 2014)

*UPDATE on the ALL the posts of NONconversant 70 IQ TROLL S.J., in this string:*



			
				S.J. said:
			
		

> Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to *prove* anything.





			
				S.J. said:
			
		

> No I didn't.





			
				S.J. said:
			
		

> There is absolutely *none.*





			
				S.J. said:
			
		

> No. *It's speculation*





			
				S.J. said:
			
		

> *Where's your Proof, asshole?* Post it or STFU.





S.J. said:


> *It's only "evidence" to a simple-minded fuckwad like you.*  You would look at a dog and a cat and say "Well, they both have 4 legs, a tail, and fur, therefore they are related".  *You are such an ignorant douchebag.*  And you have not presented even one fact.  You post somebody else's *speculation* and call it fact. You are one gullible fucking idiot.  *Last chance, post some proof.*





S.J. said:


> To you, anything that supports your theory is "evidence", whether it has any credibility or not.  *If your evidence doesn't pan out,* it isn't really evidence, is it?  You can call it evidence, but *if* it leads to a dead end, as it has so far, *you've got nothing more than speculation.*  Try again.





S.J. said:


> Well, when you have something more solid than "may indeed be", let us know.





S.J. said:


> I don't need to have anything because I'm not trying to sell anything.  You are, and the *burden of proof is on you.*  If you had any, you would have posted it by now.  In lieu of proof, you find comments by others who agree with *you and call that "evidence"* and somehow that's supposed to convince everyone that your theory holds water.  You have nothing and call it something.





S.J. said:


> You don't have shit.  Your "overwhelming evidence" *doesn't hold water* and you know it.  That's why you resort to personal attacks and try to change the subject to religion when you fail to make your case.





S.J. said:


> Could you post something other than someone else's* speculation? * Face it, Dude, you've got nothing.  Nothing but name calling.  *No facts, no evidence.*  The more you rant and rave, the more foolish you look.  I'll bet you also believe in Global Warming and think Obamacare is great.


*After pointing out his first five, ALL one liners, I've Embarrassed S.J.-the-Troll into Two-liners! 
But they still Never say ANYTHING.
the DOPE keeps asking for "proof" of a theory.
Theories don't have "proofs".
DUH.*

So when EVIDENCE (the meat) IS posted, he rejects that as "speculation"/"other people's speculation" withOUT ever explaining WHY its Not evidence. 
He is a Moron and NONCONVERSANT on this and All Science topics as we can see. Even HE knows it and trues to bluff his way thru.

Of course, If I posted it in my own words, he'd accuse that evidence of being "just my opinion" and also "speculation". 
So there's No valid source. ('heads I win, tails you lose')
*So the Two-Face ASSHOLE Never has to Answer ON TOPIC because he has these BS excuses about the source (me OR links), NEVER taking issue with the CONTENT about which we all know, he is Clueless.* Even he knows it, obviously.

*NEVER is there a topical response like/ie, "I don't think that's good Evidence and here's WHY."*
LOFL With that huh!
SJ is a NONCONVERSANT/ILLITERATE Troll who Cannot answer thusly.

What we have here (and oft) is the invasion of the Stupid god-ists and 'political sciencers' goosed by this week's Hannity instead of any knowledge whatsoever. These turds are elementary school drop outs and literal creationist Retards.

What's a Disgrace is these ILLITERATE TROLLS are allowed to continue here without ever making or refuting ANY relevant point; just harass.
Just: "no", "it's not evidence", "not Proof", "speculation", "you suck". 
And then the Stupid Hypocrite S.J. accuses others of personal insult when he has done NOTHING But Emptily TROLL and insult in the entire string.
`


----------



## S.J. (Jan 3, 2014)

abu afak said:


> *UPDATE on the ALL the posts of NONconversant 70 IQ TROLL S.J., in this string:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I notice you didn't post my responses where I explained why your "evidence" isn't really evidence if it leads to dead ends.  If you would like to post one point at a time I would be happy to debunk your bullshit point by point but when you copy and paste 20 fucking pages of opinions from another whacko like yourself, then expect me to comment on the whole fucking thing, you can go pound sand.  You aren't worth that much time and energy.

But why continue anyway, you've just admitted all you have is a theory, so anything after that is speculation or flat out guessing.  I would feel sorry for you if you weren't so obnoxious.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2014)

S.J. said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Well, dumb fuck, you just conceded the arguement when you added that last sentence. But your arguements are pissing in the wind, in any case. Nobody pays attention to really dumb asses anymore, and science is taught in science classes all over the world. People like you are regarded the same as one regards someone with Downs. Humor them, be nice to them, because there is nothing that can be done to change their sad state.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 3, 2014)

S.J. said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *UPDATE on the ALL the posts of NONconversant 70 IQ TROLL S.J., in this string: (Now 12 NON- one/two-liners)*
> ...


S.J. You DOPE, you've again pointed out one of the classic Fallacies of Other Dopes. THANKS!
And Of Course your post Still has NO Topical Content.
You're a TROLL.
The 'only a theory' Stupidity is Covered in the OP as well, but always glad to add Content.

*15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
JOHN RENNIE, editor in chief*
June 2002
Shame on America! And 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense | Yoism




> *1.* Evolution is _only_ a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
> 
> Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
> Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is _"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses__."_
> ...


*Of course, Gravity is also "Only a Theory".
S.J. is/Remains a Stupid and Gutted Troll. A platform/straight-man unwittingly Helping me to Destroy Him and other board Vermin.
Thanks for your continued support/Promotion of this string.*
`


----------



## Steven_R (Jan 3, 2014)

As soon as someone says "it's only a theory" or "it's Darwin's Theory, not Darwin's law" or some variation on the above, it is safe to simply discount the rest of their argument.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the whole anti-science drivel the Bible Bangers are pushing would be laughable if they didn't keep getting elected to local and state school boards.


----------



## aplcr0331 (Jan 3, 2014)

I wouldn't use SJG as a rebuttal for anything. He's been proven wrong, for the most part, by science in the intervening years between his publishing.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 3, 2014)

aplcr0331 said:


> I wouldn't use SJG as a rebuttal for anything. He's been proven wrong, for the most part, by science in the intervening years between his publishing.


What is it with you Morons?
Don't you feel obligated to post ANY Content/backing for your statement?
Post any logical or sourced refutation of the OP?
The OP is  statement affirming that Evolution is theory AND fact. 
That's "been proven wrong in intervening years"?
Oh really?

Yet Another 60 IQ Simpleton just chirps in with "no".
Post some Meat or get lost A-hole.
`


----------



## aplcr0331 (Jan 3, 2014)

abu afak said:


> aplcr0331 said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't use SJG as a rebuttal for anything. He's been proven wrong, for the most part, by science in the intervening years between his publishing.
> ...



Well, since you asked so nicely.

Read this one carefully - Remembering Stephen Jay Gould | Natural History Magazine

Proof that the very thing SJG accused actual scientists of, he was in fact doing himself - PLOS Biology: The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias

Contrary to SJG - http://search.vcu.edu/search?q=cach...t=default_frontend&ie=UTF-8&access=p&oe=UTF-8

SJG fame is already lessening. His dressing up his political lectures to appear as essays on scientific history isn't a very effective mechanism for lasting regard, no matter how well done. He is nowadays remembered for only two things: punctuated equilibrium and the mustard seed bias in cranial measurements.

Gould was wrong about a lot of things, however I too am an evolution believer not sure where your vitriol is coming from.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 3, 2014)

aplcr0331 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > aplcr0331 said:
> ...


I see an UNEXCERPTED LINK DUMP.
A gratuitous google/mb pet trick, of 'Gould is wrong', which will of course find GENERAL contradiction/disagreement.
I disagree with Gould on certain things too.. BUT...*
I see NOTHING refuting 'Evolution as Fact and Theory'. You?*

Your turn CLOWN.
`


----------



## aplcr0331 (Jan 3, 2014)

abu afak said:


> aplcr0331 said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



Actually here is what you get when you google "Gould was wrong" - https://www.google.com/#q=gould+was+wrong

Nothing really close to what I posted. 

Here's what Bing shows, with the search terms "Gould was wrong" - gould was wrong - Bing

Perhaps my posting was incorrectly interpreted as an indicment on SJG's (and your) position on Evolution. For that mistake, I do apologize as it seems you are very upset at me. I mean you've actually called me a clown now, and that coupled with the asshole comment and the always hurtful and eloquent negative reputation comment. Do you always react like this when (it appears that) your ideas are challenged?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 3, 2014)

aplcr0331 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > aplcr0331 said:
> ...


I act like this when you come in the the Same manner as S.J. has interminably.. with ContentLESS disagreement: "He's wrong" .. with -0- reason why. 
He never even bothers with the gratuitous Googling.

You made a Blanket statement as to "not using Gould for anything" which would of course be a mistake.
But I do thank you for even the gratuitous google
I suggest you look at S.J.'s posts throughout.
THAT was the Context of my response to your initial post.

I myself disagree with Gould on certain science issues, but we're nowhere near those finer points: we're talking Basics here. 
Evolution remains Fact and Theory. The OP unrefuted and even unaddressed substantially.
`


----------



## aplcr0331 (Jan 3, 2014)

abu afak said:


> aplcr0331 said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...



Ah, now its more clear. I did use the term "anything" so again I apologize for the grammar mistake in my original post. I too, disagree with much of what SJG has to say, and in my own crappy way...that was what I was trying to communicate. My IQ hovers closer to around 85 or there abouts, so when I google I actually tend to read an article or two instead of just pasting the first three links that pop up


----------



## S.J. (Jan 3, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Now THAT'S funny.  YOU calling someone a "dumb fuck".


----------



## S.J. (Jan 3, 2014)

aplcr0331 said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > aplcr0331 said:
> ...


*BINGO!*  He's not here to make a case for evolution, he's here to troll.  That's evident by his opening comments, not to mention the ranting and raving that followed.  Another flame baiting thread disguised as a "scientific discussion".


----------



## abu afak (Jan 3, 2014)

S.J. said:


> *[Sleeze="5"]BINGO![/SIZE]*  He's not here to make a case for Evolution, he's here to troll.  That's evident by his opening comments, not to mention the ranting and raving that followed.  Another flame baiting thread disguised as a "scientific discussion".


Um.. S.J. you DISHONEST LYING DOPE.
My last post, Like almost all MY posts was ON TOPIC: Evolution.

Yours NEVER are, you Stupid LYING Troll.

NO answer for me ON EVOLUTION and Your Juvenile/Ignorant MISUSE of "theory" you Lying/DISHONEST Clown?
You tried to DODGE the TOPIC AGAIN!



abu afak said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


*Know what a Scientific Theory is NOW idiot?
ANY TIME You're Ready TO discuss evolution, that's why I'm here and WHAT I HAVE been doing You DISHONEST DOPE.
You are a TROLL with ZERO On Topic posts.
0-fer-13*
`


----------



## S.J. (Jan 3, 2014)

abu afak said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > *[Sleeze="5"]BINGO![/SIZE]*  He's not here to make a case for Evolution, he's here to troll.  That's evident by his opening comments, not to mention the ranting and raving that followed.  Another flame baiting thread disguised as a "scientific discussion".
> ...


This was your opening post:



> Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
> You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
> Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
> You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.



Anyone who takes issue with it is a troll.  Thank you for proving my point.  Feel free to respond with more name calling and more ranting and raving, as that is the purpose of this thread.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 3, 2014)

S.J. said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Wrong again. 

1. You made another NON-TOPICAL Post::  0-fer-15.
You're a Troll.
100% certified Clean-sweep Troll.

2. That was just PART of my Opening post. 
The rest was a Gould article I highlighted/excerpted for cogent parts.
It was [indeed] addressed Especially (if not solely) to PoliticalChic *because*, as she knew, Gould was Pro-Evolution and/Yet she was Daily Misusing quote snippets of his OUT of Context to falsely 'demonstrate' he wasn't.*
SO.... it's NOT that 'anyone who disagrees with me is Dishonest', it's that PoliticalChic Indeed WAS for her intentional Misuse of Gould.*
That was the motivation for this string: To stop the continuous deception attempts/Put Gould on record for Himself. 

3. I made many other Topical and Linked posts and You had Zero answer except for your Empty and Hostile posts.
You still have NOTHING to say except "no/not", withOut elaborating why.

4. So basically, as everyone else can see, you are just Too Stupid to debate and Evasive to boot.
As you never answer, just say "no/not".
But, since I can make my points by Destroying you,  (if somewhat more slowly than I'd like), I'm happy to continue wailing on your Dumb ass with Clean winners like the Sciam link above - gutting the "only a Theory" fallacy of creationtards.

5. I repeat: You are a 100% TROLL. 15 posts with Zero discussing the topic at hand. You just obfuscated again in your last. 
*I am Absolutely here to discuss evolution and have.*
YOU have been a TROLL
YOU remain a TROLL
YOUR Next post will be yet another TROLLING NON-evolution post!

`


----------



## S.J. (Jan 3, 2014)

abu afak said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


I offered to take your points one at a time and you completely ignored my offer, focusing instead on calling everyone out who challenges your assertions or your references, even those who are basically in agreement with you (like aplcr0331).  You're more interested in hurling insults at people than you are in discussing this topic like an adult.  You flame bait, then whine about being bitch slapped for it.  Your tantrums illustrate your level of maturity and intelligence.  In other words, you need to grow the fuck up.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 5, 2014)

S.J., AS I PREDICTED above, has made YET Another EMPTY OFF TOPIC Post.

0-fer-16.

You Moron, you don't just DISHONESTLY 'OFFER' to take my points One at a time, just DO it, SHlT-Brain.
They're ALL Still there! (after 2 Months)
That's WHY the board Is here. 
DUH.
You might want to start with the OP you already TROLLED instead: You EMPTY LYING Dope.
Ever Evasion/Never content. FRAUD.

S.J. Has been a TROLL
S.J. Remains a TROLL
S.J.'s Next post will be Yet Another NON-topical TROLL!

(even his empty/Lying last wording will result in Promotion of My string topic; so WTH)
`


----------



## abu afak (Jan 25, 2014)

LTCArmyRet said:


> Until the "theory" is proven, it isn't true.





Politico said:


> Thus why they are called theories.


Refresher course time
String isn't even that old - 3 Weeks since last post -  but answers clowns.
Of course, our new clowns barely rise to this level of objection.
I mean, Using the old "evolution is Only a theory" nonsense is standard dope... but saying that some humans having Blue Eyes is evidence/proof of NON-evolution is a whole new level of Stupidity.



abu afak said:


> .....
> 
> *Evolution as Fact and Theory*
> by Stephen Jay Gould
> ...


----------



## abu afak (Jun 4, 2015)

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

*Evolution as Fact and Theory*
by Stephen Jay Gould
*StephenJayGould.org*
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

[.......]
*Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
*Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
[......]
*The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters**.*
[......]
`


----------



## Abishai100 (Jun 6, 2015)

*Imaginarium Index*


How about 'speculation as art,' and 'art as proof of imagination,' and finally, 'imagination as evidence of curiosity?'

When I see Lego Robots, in school or in a social setting, or read a story about Video-Man (Marvel Comics), that freak that can roam around inside video games and move through wires and shoot electric beams of energy, I think to myself, "Human imagination is a sort of exercise in brain development."

After all, isn't the average housewife proud of her husband when he uses his hard-earned money simply to purchase a 'smartphone' or Samsung HDTV?





Pinocchio


----------



## abu afak (Apr 28, 2017)

*


Iceweasel said:



			Liar. I use the term as intended and your little intolerant hate filled juvenile ass couldn't understand what I was talking about when I said theories have been dissproven in time. Theories are not facts, different words with different meanings. Then you tried to apply your textbook anti-Christian bile against me to fluff up your hollow ego.
		
Click to expand...



Evolution as Fact and Theory*
by Stephen Jay Gould
*StephenJayGould.org*
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
[.....]
*Well, evolution is a Theory. It is Also a Fact.* And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: *establishing the fact of evolution*, and proposing a theory to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
*Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
*Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]​


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 28, 2017)

abu afak said:


> Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
> You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
> Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
> You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.
> ...


So your god is Gould? Most Christians believe in evolution. Problem is it is often represented as the explanation for life, misused as a secular form of religion. Debating how it happened is the key.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 28, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> So your god is Gould? Most Christians believe in evolution. Problem is it is often represented as the explanation for life, misused as a secular form of religion. Debating how it happened is the key.


No.
The key was showing your Unbelievably Stupid and a LIAR.
A-FRIGGING-gain: You claimed "theory" as if it meant conjecture.
How many Dog Damn times?

SCIAM ad infinitum:


*1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. 
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-Substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the Theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution."..."
`*​


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 28, 2017)

jwoodie said:


> Contrary to the OP's opinion, fact does mean absolute certainty (e.g., Earth revolves around Sun).  Moreover, resorting to word mincing between "what" and "how" indicates a shallowness of thought.
> 
> Ironically, the least informed Darwinists (unable to distinguish between intra- and inter-species differentiation) are also the most strident proponents.  No reputable biologist has been able to put forth a credible theory as to how one species can mutate into an entirely different species.  We may ultimately determine an explanation, but we are not there yet.



Ridiculous. Saying someone on the internet that is not true is quite easy. And as easily ignored as the abject ignorance it is. 


"The voice of intelligence is drowned out by the roar of fear. It is ignored by the voice of desire. It is contradicted by the voice of shame. It is biased by hate and extinguished by anger. Most of all it is silenced by ignorance." - Karl A. Menninger -


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 28, 2017)

abu afak said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > So your god is Gould? Most Christians believe in evolution. Problem is it is often represented as the explanation for life, misused as a secular form of religion. Debating how it happened is the key.
> ...


I haven't argued against evolution, I disagree with a secular cause. Nor do I share your religious beliefs so quoting scripture to me does no good. Massaging definitions to suit agendas is what disciples do. 


scientific theory
*scientific theory*
a theory that can be tested and potentially disproved; failure to disprove or refute it increases confidence in it, but it cannot be considered as proven.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 28, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> scientific theory
> *scientific theory*
> a theory that can be tested and potentially disproved; failure to disprove or refute it increases confidence in it, but it cannot be considered as proven.


Does NOT contradict what I said, but is DISHONEST Cherry-Picking on your part
FILTHY DISHONESTY
Google "Scientific theory"
scientific theory - Google Search

First up: Wiki

A *scientific theory* is a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly Confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported *theories* are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
*Scientific theory - Wikipedia*
Scientific theory - Wikipedia​
Sciam:
"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words


Theories do Not, and don't have to be, Proven to be FACT.
Proofs are only for math.
Most Statements of Fact are not "Proven."​


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 28, 2017)

abu afak said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > scientific theory
> ...


You can foam over and puke all over yourself as far as I care. Theories are not facts, period! The steady state model of the universe was the running theory of the day. Now, not so much. Like I said, zealots like you try to massage words, not me.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 28, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Gravity IS a FACT.
Evolution IS a FACT.
Atomic Theory IS a Fact
Some newer Scientific theories are Not/Not Yet facts, but await decades of Confirmation as the other 3 ALREADY have.

You're not near smart enough semantically (either) to strawman me with "ALL" theories are Facts.
Gameover little Turd.
`


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


By your own words, you reveal that you are completely ignorant of what theory means in science. Also, that you remain ignorant on purpose.


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 28, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


I gave an example of how a theory differs from a fact. Your turd for a brain isn't my shortcoming.


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 28, 2017)

abu afak said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Turdbreath. We know gravity exists but we have theories to explain it. As more facts come in they can be modified or discarded altogether. So....how it works and the fact it exists are two different things. You are trying to play some semantic game to prop up your shaky secular religion.


----------



## abu afak (Apr 28, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> ..Turdbreath. We know gravity exists but we have theories to explain it. As more facts come in they can be modified or discarded altogether. So....how it works and the fact it exists are two different things. You are trying to play some semantic game to prop up your shaky secular religion.


My Gould article contains your newest claims about "how it works".
In fact, that very phrase. Evo is a FACT, we're just debating "how it works."

That does NOT refute, or even disagree with Evo (and others) being FACTS.
Gravity get's Tweaks/How it works, it's still a Fact.
Gould himself added 'Punctuated Equilibrium' to the Theory and FACT of Evolution!
Ooops

Again you are Not near semantically clever enough either.
Your original proposition that Evo and others were theories because of doubt is/was/remains Wrong.
So now you are moving the goal posts.
YOU LOST, STILL.

Save time: Just assume you're down 30+ IQ points.
`


----------



## Iceweasel (Apr 28, 2017)

abu afak said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > ..Turdbreath. We know gravity exists but we have theories to explain it. As more facts come in they can be modified or discarded altogether. So....how it works and the fact it exists are two different things. You are trying to play some semantic game to prop up your shaky secular religion.
> ...


Oops what? I didn't dispute that evolution exists. I even said so numerous times but you continue to go ape on your keyboard. Maybe you're a monkey that knows how to type? 

As I recall his punctuated equilibrium was a theory to explain the Cambrium Explosion and it was European evolutionists that had an opposing view, don't recall what it was though. 

So the theory isn't exactly ubiquitous. You are a cultists defending your faith. All I did was disagree with a secular cause to make you go full retard.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> You're sticking to your lie???
> Darwin's theory is taught at every level of school as a fact.
> You can see posts where government school grads claim it a fact.
> The error is accepted by nearly every government school grad. Evolution…settled: “it’s a fact.”You can play with words, but here are your pals admitting it.
> ...




Nov 6, 2013

*Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claims.*
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

*Evolution as Fact and Theory*
by Stephen Jay Gould
*StephenJayGould.org*
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

*The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts* before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"&#8212;part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science&#8212;that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

*Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.* And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: *establishing the fact of evolution*, and proposing a theory&#8212;natural selection&#8212;to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
*Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. *We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
*Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.*
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > You're sticking to your lie???
> ...





Which of my quotes was false?


----------



## abu afak (Jul 26, 2020)

That's NOT an answer to my post/article, which pointed out the ABUSE of Uncontexted quotes.

So by Not answering me, just UNWITtingly confirm what I/He said, which doesn't necessarily include 'false', just Out of context and Misleading.

See many in this thread and others.

In fact Quote-Mining is your DISHONEST bread and Butter.

`

`


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> That's NOT an answer to my post/article, which pointed out the ABUSE of Uncontexted quotes.
> 
> So by Not answering me, just UNWITtingly confirm what I/He said, which doesn't necessarily include 'false', just Out of context and Misleading.
> 
> ...



All quotes are " Uncontexted quotes."

Otherwise, one would require the full essay, text, book.

So, you agree that all of my quotes, sourced, linked and documented are true, correct and accurate.

Excellent.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > That's NOT an answer to my post/article, which pointed out the ABUSE of Uncontexted quotes.
> ...





Let's try one.


Here is Stephen J. Gould, Marxist, pretty much throwing Darwin under the bus.

_“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Is this quote accurate, true, and correct?


Of course it is, and ends any defense of Darwinism.




That's really gotta hurt, huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Here is Stephen J. Gould, Marxist, pretty much throwing Darwin under the bus.

_“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Is this quote accurate, true, and correct? 



I jammed it down your lying throat, huh?


----------



## abu afak (Jul 26, 2020)

I see you tried to DISHONESTLY sandwich/bury my reply with two identical posts 14 minutes apart.
Didn't work
Part of your usual Bury-em-with-BS Hyper-spaced posts.

*SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
He disagrees with perfect 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.*

*You are also, and most crucially, trying to Discredit Evolution by Nitpicking Darwin WITH GOULD.
Exactly the DISHONEST PLOY Gould wrote about above!

GOULD BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION 100%.*

*You cannot debate me.
You're both wrong and not semantically clever enough.
You are a DISHONEST and Brainwashed Creationist Cultist spammer and 7/11 Adventist.
You need to be detoxed with years of therapy/real education.


`*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
> He disagrees with perfct 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equalibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
> This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.
> 
> ...




1.  I just provided a quote from Gould that said the very opposite of Darwin's theory.

2. And, let's remember, Stephen Gould became famous in his attempt to prop up Darwin's theory by altering it as follows: evolution was not gradual...but new species popped up via 'punctuated equalibrium,'.....and idea he got from his Marxism.

3. A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book _The Culture of Critique_, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that *Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change*’
MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’,





See what I taught you?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> I see you tried to DISHONESTLY sandwich/bury my reply with two identical posts 14 minutes apart.
> Didn't work
> Part of your usual Bury-em-with-BS Hyper-spaced posts.
> 
> ...




I don't debate you.....I destroy you.


Are we having fun?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> *SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
> He disagrees with perfect 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
> This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.
> 
> ...


Here is Stephen J. Gould, Marxist, pretty much throwing Darwin under the bus.

_“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Is this quote accurate, true, and correct?

1. I just provided a quote from Gould that said the very opposite of Darwin's theory.

2. And, let's remember, Stephen Gould became famous in his attempt to prop up Darwin's theory by altering it as follows: evolution was not gradual...but new species popped up via 'punctuated equalibrium,'.....and idea he got from his Marxism.

3. A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book _The Culture of Critique_, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that *Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change*’
MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’,





See what I taught you? Darwin/Gould theory is political, not scientific.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 26, 2020)

*SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
He disagrees with perfect 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.

You are also, and most crucially, trying to Discredit Evolution by Nitpicking Darwin WITH GOULD.
Exactly the DISHONEST PLOY Gould wrote about above!

GOULD BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION 100%.

You cannot debate me.
You're both wrong and Not semantically clever enough.
You are a DISHONEST and Brainwashed Creationist Cultist Spammer and 7/11 Adventist.
You need to be detoxed with years of therapy/real education.

BTW BIMBO: Being a "Marxist" (or a Fascist) (or Democrat) doesn't make science correct or incorrect.
It's just another of your STUPID Smear attempts.


`*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> *SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
> He disagrees with perfect 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
> This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.
> 
> ...





I proved the point, any the best you can do is ignore the proof.

The beatings will continue until I see the light of learning on your part….and then they will continue for the sheer joy of it.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 26, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Here is Stephen J. Gould, Marxist, pretty much throwing Darwin under the bus.
> 
> _“_“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. _Stasis_. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. _Sudden appearance_. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. _The Panda’s Thumb_, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
> 
> ...



*SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
He disagrees with perfect 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.

You are also, and most crucially, trying to Discredit Evolution by Nitpicking Darwin WITH GOULD.
Exactly the DISHONEST PLOY Gould wrote about above!

GOULD BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION 100%.

You cannot debate me.
You're both wrong and Not semantically clever enough.
You are a DISHONEST and Brainwashed Creationist Cultist Spammer and 7/11 Adventist.
You need to be detoxed with years of therapy/real education.

BTW BIMBO: Being a "Marxist" (or a Fascist) (or Democrat) doesn't make science correct or incorrect.
It's just another of your STUPID Smear attempts.*

Have a nice page.
This one is now mine too.
Now YOU "Jam it down your throat". (for the usual $5)

*`*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 26, 2020)

abu afak said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Here is Stephen J. Gould, Marxist, pretty much throwing Darwin under the bus.
> ...



Why sugar-coat it: you’re not capable of an intelligent response. All of your posts reek of ignorance. How about you provide another one, just to prove it.

Write soon so I can smack you around some more.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 26, 2020)

S.J. said:


> Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to prove anything.


The Theory of Evolution is the most robust and well supported scientific theory in history. Just because you have never cracked a science book and haven't seen the evidence does not mean it does not exist.


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2021)

PoIiticalChic said:


> Why sugar-coat it: you’re not capable of an intelligent response. All of your posts reek of ignorance. How about you provide another one, just to prove it.
> 
> Write soon so I can smack you around some more.


I hardly sugar coated it.. I regularly call you the Liar for Jesus you are.
And thanks for the old bump opportunity.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to prove anything.
> ...


Why hasn't intelligent life "evolved" on Europa or Venus?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why hasn't intelligent life "evolved" on Europa or Venus?


God was extremely limited in resources/talent apparently?

`


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Steven_R said:


> When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.



I have a better idea!

Let's discuss why _you_ believe metaphysical naturalism, on which the fanciful hypothesis of evolution is predicated, is necessarily true.  Then we can discuss how you, _not God_, tricked yourself into interpreting the available evidence per the gratuitous insertion of an apriority that circularly begs the question and axiomatically yields the mathematical monstrosity of a biological history entailing an evolutionary branching and transmutational process of speciation from a common ancestry. 

Then we can transparently perceive the actual reason that biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis believe it to be true, that is, because they presuppose their interpretation of the available evidence in their premise as they observe that adaptive radiation occurs and that the paleontological record entails the chronologically sequential appearances of species of a generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.

The gratuitous apriority is not observed.  It's an assumption and scientifically unfalsifiable.

_Hocus Pocus_ 

Make sure you stay to the end when I show you the potentiality that has never occurred to you in all of your unexamined life, namely, that biological history entails a series of creative events per a systematically upgraded and transcribed genetic motif of common design imbued by God to adaptively radiate per the mechanisms of natural selection, genetic mutation, genetic drift, and genetic flow over geological time.

Bonus points if you should suddenly have the epiphany that the available evidence would actually be similar, although a cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation to the taxonomic level of genus is all we actually observe. The putative evolutionary branching and transmutational speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed. Not now, not ever!


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> The fossils of Karoo.



Prove what, precisely?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.
> ...


An even better idea: we just continue to ignore you denier freaks as we have for decades.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > scientific theory
> ...



Mindless, cut-and-paste slogan speak which has absolutely nothing to do with the pertinent issue.

Meanwhile back to issue:  Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.
> ...


There’s no need for “belief” in Metaphysical naturalism. Natural phenomenon (as opposed to your nonsensical supernatural phenomena) is all humanity has evidence for. 

Tell us about “supernatural naturalism”. Provide some examples and supporting data. Show us the magic.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 12, 2021)

IsaacNewton said:


> Ridiculous. Saying someone on the internet that is not true is quite easy. And as easily ignored as the abject ignorance it is.
> 
> 
> "The voice of intelligence is drowned out by the roar of fear. It is ignored by the voice of desire. It is contradicted by the voice of shame. It is biased by hate and extinguished by anger. Most of all it is silenced by ignorance." - Karl A. Menninger -



What's ridiculous is your blind faith in naturalism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 12, 2021)

6WUOTE="Ringtone, post: 26328294, member: 72504"]


abu afak said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > scientific theory
> ...



Mindless, cut-and-paste slogan speak which has absolutely nothing to do with the pertinent issue.

Meanwhile back to issue:  Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
[/QUOTE]
Yep, evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 13, 2021)

Smilodonfatalis said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.
> ...



Presumably, RetiredGySgt's observation goes to the absurdity of speciation above the genus level of taxonomy and the fact that we do not and cannot observe speciation beyond the cyclically limited range of adaptive radiation.  He is absolutely right!  

And you are utterly unaware of why you actually believe evolution is true.


----------



## Ringtone (Jan 13, 2021)

Look, everybody, Hollie actually said  "supernatural naturalism."  You just can't make this degree of stupidity up.  LOL!


----------



## Hollie (Jan 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Look, everybody, Hollie actually said  "supernatural naturalism."  You just can't make this degree of stupidity up.  LOL!


Actually, your limitations are rather graphically depicted. Such slogans as "metaphysical naturalism" is a retreat by ID'iot creationists to their tactics of denigrating the reason and rationing of science. 

If ID'iot creationers have any evidence of their supernatural realms inhabited by supernatural gods (the supernatural natural), present your evidence. 

Thanks 

I'll be waiting for evidence of your various gods in their heavenly realms, dressed in nightgowns while fat, naked babies playing harps cruise through the clouds.


----------



## Hollie (Jan 13, 2021)

Ringtone said:


> Smilodonfatalis said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



You make the typical mistakes that are typically made among the typical hyper-religious types. There is no _belief_ required for the discipines of science such as biological evolution. The fact of biological evolution is a conclusion that derives from facts and supporting evidence. There is no requirement for _belief_ that specied evolve. That’s a proven fact. The reason and rationality of science rejects the need for magic and supernaturalism that is a function of belief in gods.

Unfortunately, you enter a science discussion with no training in science. Your time spent at the Jimmy Swaggert Academy has left you ill-prepared to discuss science matters.

“Theories” do not gain currency in any scientific field merely because they “suit our belief.” We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between good theories and bad ones. And science is the single most powerful and productive human enterprise in the history of our species only because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse.

You clearly are lacking in terms of understanding definitions used in science. You don’t understand the most basic precepts of speciation. That’s not surprising as the fundie ministries you use as the sources of your cutting and pasting have a predefined agenda that is announced by the “Statement of Faith” that is common to the various fundie ministries.

1. Observed Instances of Speciation

2. Some More Observed Speciation Events

3. CB910: New species

4. This is real science.......not religionism.

Why you imagine your ignorant and unschooled comments are some sort of challenge to evolution is not clear to me. The mechanisms for speciation are very well understood, and can even be observed to be occurring today. Take for example "ring species" such as the salamanders of the genus _Ensatina_, or (more well known) the circumpolar gulls of the genus _Larus_.

The range of these gulls forms a ring around the North Pole. The Herring Gull, which lives primarily in Great Britain, can hybridize with the American Herring Gull (living in North America), which can also interbreed with the Vega or East Siberian Herring Gull, the western subspecies of which, Birula's Gull, can hybridize with Heuglin's gull, which in turn can interbreed with the Siberian Lesser Black-backed Gull (all four of these live across the north of Siberia). The last is the eastern representative of the Lesser Black-backed Gulls back in northwestern Europe, including Great Britain. However, the Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gull are sufficiently different that they cannot interbreed; thus the group of gulls forms a continuum except in Europe where the two lineages meet.

This means of course that the two populations in Europe are different species (just as _H. ergaster_ and _H. sapiens_ are different species). Yet there is genetic continuity between them. In the case of the gulls, that continuity still exists in living gulls. In the case of humans, the intermediates are extinct.

 It is factually false to claim that there are no intermediate forms between the listed species. Between _H. ergaster_ and _H. sapiens_ there is an intermediate species called _H. heidelbergensis_. As evolution would predict, the earliest _heidelbergensis_ resemble _ergaster_ more than they do _sapiens_, while the later _heidelbergensis_ more resemble _sapiens_. as a result, the dividing line between the species is largely arbitrary, based more on age and location than any specific Rubicon of morphology. There is, in fact, an almost unbroken series of intermediate fossils between modern man and the earliest representatives of our genus back to _H. habilis_. And given the fact that evolution is a local phenomenon, it is no surprise to discover (contrary to ID’iot creationer screeching) that several of these species overlapped in time.

And you are aware of why you launch yourself into drooling tirades aimed at science; you despise what you don't understand and science is a direct refutation to your belief in magic and supernaturalism


----------



## abu afak (Feb 16, 2021)

james bond said:


> The truth is people weren't taught human evolution.  *Human evolution isn't a fact.  Even Darwin didn't say that.*  Furthermore, there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor.  That kills it right there.  And who wants to be a monkey's uncle like you?  Are you hairy, eat bananas, sh*t in the jungle, and walk on fours?



*abu afak

Evolution as Fact and Theory*
by Stephen Jay Gould
*StephenJayGould.org*
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994



> "...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.
> 
> *The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts* before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
> First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
> ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 16, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why hasn't intelligent life "evolved" on Europa or Venus?


How do you know it didn't? What about evolution says it should have?


----------



## abu afak (Jan 11, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How do you know it didn't? What about evolution says it should have?


CrusaderFrank  also denies AGW with nonsense one-line trolls.
Science porks his belief system so he tries to discredit it everywhere.

`


----------



## Hollie (Jan 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Look, everybody, Hollie actually said  "supernatural naturalism."  You just can't make this degree of stupidity up.  LOL!



Aside from your usual bloviating about supernaturalism and your various gods, identify a single instance of a supernatural event. 

Thanks.


----------



## james bond (Jan 12, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Aside from your usual bloviating about supernaturalism and your various gods, identify a single instance of a supernatural event.


There's only one God.  Have you not paid attention for all these times.


----------



## james bond (Jan 12, 2022)

Hollie said:


> Thanks.


There's one more question as I've never asked my ex-wife or new girl friend about this.

I was watching a Mary Tyler Moore old rerun from the 70s.  What is the deal with press on nails?  Don't women just usually do their nails or have their nails done at the salon?  I dunno why, but just figured you would know .


----------



## abu afak (Jan 14, 2022)

abu afak said:


> In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.
> 
> *Evolution as Fact and Theory*
> by Stephen Jay Gould
> ...


Been there, done that.
I have hit all the Pillars of Evolution Deniers like Caveman.

OUCHER



Captain Caveman said:


> *Is Darwinism a fact or theory?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

