# Real Science…Not Darwin



## PoliticalChic

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers

And this…

“_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

_“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.




3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.” 
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory. 

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’ 

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic



To whom?


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To whom?
Click to expand...




What a silly question when you've been a part of several such threads......


....and here you are today.


----------



## hjmick

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To whom?
Click to expand...



Her.


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a silly question when you've been a part of several such threads......
> 
> 
> ....and here you are today.
Click to expand...


It's an amusing topic, not necessarily important or germane to anything.


----------



## fncceo

It reminds me of the great debate over whether the Sun or Earth was the center of the Universe.  Eventually, we found out, it was neither.


----------



## PoliticalChic

hjmick said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Her.
Click to expand...



Absolutely.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> It reminds me of the great debate over whether the Sun or Earth was the center of the Universe.  Eventually, we found out, it was neither.




You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

I believe you, in fact, will benefit from my explanation of the meaning of species.


----------



## rightwinger

The only ones dumb enough not to accept evolution are Home Skooled


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.



Well, see, you *say *that.


----------



## rightwinger

Evolution is a FACT
Creatures evolved from simple to complex

It is supported by Biology, Fossils, Geology and DNA

Only Home Skool freaks can’t accept it


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
Click to expand...



I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
Click to expand...


Yes, I've seen your sources.  Not exactly unbiased.


----------



## PoliticalChic

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
 He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that." 
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”* 
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
Click to expand...

Your cut and paste "quotes" are edited, parsed and altered.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I've seen your sources.  Not exactly unbiased.
Click to expand...



I notice you didn't provide any examples.

I'm gonna have to relegate your post to the heap of Liberal responses, which boil down to the brilliant "is not, issssss nooottttttt!!!" variety.


Try to be as precise as I am.....I publish truth with the diligence of a UN translator.


----------



## DGS49

The reason why it is an important discussion is because the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible.  It renders all Believers to be superstitious fools. This is why they insist that Evolution is a "fact."

And of course, the irony is that the very statement that, "Evolution is a fact" reveals the scientific ignorance of the speaker.  No true scientist would ever express such nonsense.


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> I'm gonna have to relegate your post to the heap of Liberal responses



I'm not a liberal or a Liberal ... but, that doesn't interfere with me rejecting the latest theory of Evolution.


----------



## PoliticalChic

DGS49 said:


> The reason why it is an important discussion is because the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible.  It renders all Believers to be superstitious fools. This is why they insist that Evolution is a "fact."
> 
> And of course, the irony is that the very statement that, "Evolution is a fact" reveals the scientific ignorance of the speaker.  No true scientist would ever express such nonsense.





Your post needs no validation, as many of not most of Darwin's supporters who are scientists by vocation, are Marxists by religion.

"Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the _democratic _bourgeoisie—*for that very reason it is the most dangerous* foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million _physical _sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the _nubile_, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes." Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY


----------



## fncceo

DGS49 said:


> the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible.



Well, that's just stupid.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna have to relegate your post to the heap of Liberal responses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal or a Liberal ... but, that doesn't interfere with me rejecting the latest theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...

 

I didn't say you are.....read more carefully.


What I said is that you didn't support your post.....nor have you up to this moment.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.



1. variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use a term describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the examples you use.

2. Another term you don’t understand is 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.

3. Observed Instances of Speciation

4. Some More Observed Speciation Events

5. CB910: New species

6. What was the cost of tuition you paid to attend the Harun Yahya madrassah?


----------



## fncceo

Of course, a literal interpretation of Genesis wouldn't be defensible even if Darwin never existed.

But, a rejection of literal scriptural interpretation isn't a rejection of G-d.


----------



## rightwinger

DGS49 said:


> The reason why it is an important discussion is because the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible.  It renders all Believers to be superstitious fools. This is why they insist that Evolution is a "fact."
> 
> And of course, the irony is that the very statement that, "Evolution is a fact" reveals the scientific ignorance of the speaker.  No true scientist would ever express such nonsense.


Evolution is a FACT, it occurred.  Complex creatures evolved from simpler creatures.  It is undeniable.

 What is a theory is the how and why it occurs.


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's just stupid.
Click to expand...



He is 100% correct.

Watch how I support a post.....you should learn from this:



“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
...there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????


1. Do you suffer from ''shaken baby syndrome''?


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> Of course, a literal interpretation of Genesis wouldn't be defensible even if Darwin never existed.
> 
> But, a rejection of literal scriptural interpretation isn't a rejection of G-d.





Written by a scientist who delineates the amazing confluence between the modern understanding of the development of life on earth, and the order of events in Genesis.

Your homework:


----------



## Tommy Tainant

fncceo said:


> It reminds me of the great debate over whether the Sun or Earth was the center of the Universe.  Eventually, we found out, it was neither.


I am pretty much the centre of my world. I think that holds for other great men like President Trump and similar.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He is 100% correct.
> 
> Watch how I support a post.....you should learn from this:
> 
> 
> 
> “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in _The New York Review of Books_, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”
> ...there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.
Click to expand...


1. “...the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics”

Oh, good gawd. We can’t allow mathematics and physics to cloud our lessons.


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> .there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict.



Why would you listen to them?  The fact that such talk threatens you says more about you than it does about them.

Faith is a personal thing.  If you're the only person on the planet who has faith in someone, it's no less valid than if everyone had faith in it.


----------



## fncceo

Tommy Tainant said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It reminds me of the great debate over whether the Sun or Earth was the center of the Universe.  Eventually, we found out, it was neither.
> 
> 
> 
> I am pretty much the centre of my world. I think that holds for other great men like President Trump and similar.
Click to expand...


I live in a Solipsistic Universe, so your belief that you are the center of the world is only an imaginary construct to me being the actual center of the Universe


----------



## harmonica

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????


no--it means it's getting to YOU--since you made a thread on it
hahahahahhahahahahah


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a literal interpretation of Genesis wouldn't be defensible even if Darwin never existed.
> 
> But, a rejection of literal scriptural interpretation isn't a rejection of G-d.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written by a scientist who delineates the amazing confluence between the modern understanding of the development of life on earth, and the order of events in Genesis.
> 
> Your homework:
> 
> View attachment 355729
Click to expand...


Do we finally get a scientifically accurate description of talking snakes?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????



*Real Science…Not “Quotes”*


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> .there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you listen to them?  The fact that such talk threatens you says more about you than it does about them.
> 
> Faith is a personal thing.  If you're the only person on the planet who has faith in someone, it's no less valid than if everyone had faith in it.
Click to expand...






> "the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible."


"Well, that's just stupid. "

This post isn't consistent with what you wrote earlier.

Turns out he was correct, wasn't he.


----------



## PoliticalChic

harmonica said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> no--it means it's getting to YOU--since you made a thread on it
> hahahahahhahahahahah
Click to expand...




Yet, here you are, proving what I wrote.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a literal interpretation of Genesis wouldn't be defensible even if Darwin never existed.
> 
> But, a rejection of literal scriptural interpretation isn't a rejection of G-d.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written by a scientist who delineates the amazing confluence between the modern understanding of the development of life on earth, and the order of events in Genesis.
> 
> Your homework:
> 
> View attachment 355729
Click to expand...


“You limit the power of angels when you speak negative, complaining, unbelieving words instead of speaking what God has declared.” 
― Benny Hinn, Angels and Demons


----------



## fncceo

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, a literal interpretation of Genesis wouldn't be defensible even if Darwin never existed.
> 
> But, a rejection of literal scriptural interpretation isn't a rejection of G-d.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written by a scientist who delineates the amazing confluence between the modern understanding of the development of life on earth, and the order of events in Genesis.
> 
> Your homework:
> 
> View attachment 355729
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we finally get a scientifically accurate description of talking snakes?
Click to expand...


Only in 'Harry Potter' movies.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> no--it means it's getting to YOU--since you made a thread on it
> hahahahahhahahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, here you are, proving what I wrote.
Click to expand...

What “quote” did you write?


----------



## fncceo

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> .there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you listen to them?  The fact that such talk threatens you says more about you than it does about them.
> 
> Faith is a personal thing.  If you're the only person on the planet who has faith in someone, it's no less valid than if everyone had faith in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Well, that's just stupid. "
> 
> This post isn't consistent with what you wrote earlier.
> 
> Turns out he was correct, wasn't he.
Click to expand...


You seem to be mixing a scientific theory that has data and evidence with the opinions of some scientists and non-scientist that they are just pulling out of their collective arses.

All the available evidence supports evolution as the most probable (emphasis on probable) theory to explain life on Earth.  

But, if a scientist of political activist thinks that proves or disproves matters of faith, then he (or she) is full of bull.


----------



## Grumblenuts

harmonica said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> no--it means it's getting to YOU--since you made a thread on it
> hahahahahhahahahahah
Click to expand...

Uh, way more than one.. OMG, things evolve? HORRORS!


----------



## PoliticalChic

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> .there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you listen to them?  The fact that such talk threatens you says more about you than it does about them.
> 
> Faith is a personal thing.  If you're the only person on the planet who has faith in someone, it's no less valid than if everyone had faith in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Well, that's just stupid. "
> 
> This post isn't consistent with what you wrote earlier.
> 
> Turns out he was correct, wasn't he.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to be mixing a scientific theory that has data and evidence with the opinions of some scientists and non-scientist that they are just pulling out of their collective arses.
> 
> All the available evidence supports evolution as the most probable (emphasis on probable) theory to explain life on Earth.
> 
> But, if a scientist of political activist thinks that proves or disproves matters of faith, then he (or she) is full of bull.
Click to expand...



"You seem to be mixing a scientific theory that has data and evidence ..."


You appear determined to win the "Windbag Award."

You provided no such 'data and evidence.'

Know why?

There is none.

That's what I have shown in these several thread.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????




1. When did quote/unquote _Darwinism_ become a quote/unquote _hot_ _topic_?

2. It appears that the quote/unquote _hyper-religious _are the entities opening multiple threads frantically quote/unquote _quoting _from quote/unquote_ religionists _in frantic attempts to denigrate science.


----------



## PoliticalChic

What is a 'species' and what does it have to do with disproving Darwinism?


8. If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.

Hence, the amusement caused by the dunce who wrote this:
“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.”
The Most Famous Fakes In Science





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

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

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.



Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.



Folks with a science IQ recognize that “Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians” can all interbreed, and are, therefore members of the same species.
This is real science......not Darwinism.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> What is a 'species' and what does it have to do with disproving Darwinism?
> 
> 
> 8. If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> Hence, the amusement caused by the dunce who wrote this:
> “Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.”
> The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> 
> 
> 
> Folks with a science IQ recognize that “Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians” can all interbreed, and are, therefore members of the same species.
> This is real science......not Darwinism.



1. variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use a term describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the examples you use.

2. Another term you don’t understand is 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.

3. Observed Instances of Speciation

4. Some More Observed Speciation Events

5. CB910: New species

6. This is real science.......not religionism.


----------



## LuckyDuck

I don't know what it is with these religious nutjobs that keep putting their absolutely UNSCIENTIFIC bible crap in the science section.  There is a completely separate religious section on these boards for that.  There is absolutely NOTHING SCIENTIFIC about religion, the bible and the belief in an invisible all-powerful, all-knowing, can-do-anything, supernatural thingy in the sky.  There are approximately 4,200 religions in the world and they're not SCIENTIFIC...not even the Scientology religion.   As for evolution, the scientific stand is that it is both, fact and theory, meaning that they recognize that evolution exists, but...do not completely understand its mechanism.  Not completely understanding the mechanism doesn't mean that whatever you don't completely understand, brings in the invisible thingy to be an explanation.  That's just reducing a current or any unknown to a childish/superstitious cop out. "We don't know everything, let's just insert the invisible thingy and say he/she/it, did it.  It saves us all the headache of actual research in trying to understand the universe."


----------



## harmonica

PoliticalChic said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> no--it means it's getting to YOU--since you made a thread on it
> hahahahahhahahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, here you are, proving what I wrote.
Click to expand...

sure I am!! hahahahahahhahahah


----------



## Grumblenuts

Or


LuckyDuck said:


> That's just reducing a current or any unknown to a childish/superstitious cop out. "We don't know everything, let's just


fear it, blow it up, bomb it, smash it, start a war over it.


----------



## harmonica

PoliticalChic said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> no--it means it's getting to YOU--since you made a thread on it
> hahahahahhahahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, here you are, proving what I wrote.
Click to expand...

...so---last time--explain in about 10 sentences your creation of man theory = a fully formed human just ''appeared''???!!


----------



## LuckyDuck

Grumblenuts said:


> Or
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just reducing a current or any unknown to a childish/superstitious cop out. "We don't know everything, let's just
> 
> 
> 
> fear it, blow it up, bomb it, smash it, start a war over it.
Click to expand...

The only thing I'm willing to go to war over is to resist Communism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

LuckyDuck said:


> I don't know what it is with these religious nutjobs that keep putting their absolutely UNSCIENTIFIC bible crap in the science section.  There is a completely separate religious section on these boards for that.  There is absolutely NOTHING SCIENTIFIC about religion, the bible and the belief in an invisible all-powerful, all-knowing, can-do-anything, supernatural thingy in the sky.  There are approximately 4,200 religions in the world and they're not SCIENTIFIC...not even the Scientology religion.   As for evolution, the scientific stand is that it is both, fact and theory, meaning that they recognize that evolution exists, but...do not completely understand its mechanism.  Not completely understanding the mechanism doesn't mean that whatever you don't completely understand, brings in the invisible thingy to be an explanation.  That's just reducing a current or any unknown to a childish/superstitious cop out. "We don't know everything, let's just insert the invisible thingy and say he/she/it, did it.  It saves us all the headache of actual research to try and understand the universe."





"I don't know what it is with these religious nutjobs that keep putting their absolutely UNSCIENTIFIC bible crap in the science section."


Watch how easily I prove you a lying low-life, simply the sort government school turns out by the bushel. 


There is nothing about religion or the Bible as evidence against Darwin in any of my posts.

It is all 100% unadulterated science knowledge.....all sourced, documented and linked.


You are able to check all of it, and you will find me to be totally correct, accurate and true.


Now....why are you so angered by truth?


----------



## PoliticalChic

harmonica said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> no--it means it's getting to YOU--since you made a thread on it
> hahahahahhahahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, here you are, proving what I wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...so---last time--explain in about 10 sentences your creation of man theory = a fully formed human just ''appeared''???!!
Click to expand...



Why?

This thread is very specific:
This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.



In any number of sentences, explain why these are true:

“_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers

And this…

“_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

_“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._”            The Most Famous Fakes In Science



Or....simply admit you are a dunce.


----------



## Grumblenuts

LuckyDuck said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just reducing a current or any unknown to a childish/superstitious cop out. "We don't know everything, let's just
> 
> 
> 
> fear it, blow it up, bomb it, smash it, start a war over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only thing I'm willing to go to war over is to resist Communism.
Click to expand...

Let's see then _fascism okay, white supremacy, alien invasion,.. Fine, but communist subversion, communist infiltration, communist fluoridation of our precious bodily fluids! Now hit the button! Never! 

_


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
Click to expand...

In other words, you appeal to authority to convince us.  Did you forget your own (cut and pasted) words: "Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority".


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you appeal to authority to convince us.  Did you forget your own (cut and pasted) words: "Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority".
Click to expand...



I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

So sorry you are not able to 'appeal' to either.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Let's pick up where Darwin left off.

9. The history of breeding of both plants and animals has often found *changes in individuals.* Breeders who liked the modification attempt to mate organisms in the hope that it becomes set in all of the stock. *This is not evolution*. These sorts of alterations, good or bad, have never led to new species.



"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



 Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you appeal to authority to convince us.  Did you forget your own (cut and pasted) words: "Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> So sorry you are not able to 'appeal' to either.
Click to expand...

1. Where have you quote/unquote _appealed_ to knowledge by quote/unquote _quoting_ from fundie ID'iot creationist websites?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Let's pick up where Darwin left off.
> 
> 9. The history of breeding of both plants and animals has often found *changes in individuals.* Breeders who liked the modification attempt to mate organisms in the hope that it becomes set in all of the stock. *This is not evolution*. These sorts of alterations, good or bad, have never led to new species.
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???


Let's begin with what you don't know.

1. variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use a term describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the examples you use.

2. Another term you don’t understand is 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.

3. Observed Instances of Speciation

4. Some More Observed Speciation Events

5. CB910: New species

6. This is real science.......not religionism.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.


Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.


----------



## alang1216

DGS49 said:


> The reason why it is an important discussion is because the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible.  It renders all Believers to be superstitious fools. This is why they insist that Evolution is a "fact."
> 
> And of course, the irony is that the very statement that, "Evolution is a fact" reveals the scientific ignorance of the speaker.  No true scientist would ever express such nonsense.


I think the subject divides us into two camps: those that see the world as it is and those that see the world the way they want it to be.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
Click to expand...



You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
Click to expand...

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.  

If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
Click to expand...





"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???


----------



## irosie91

PoliticalChic said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
Click to expand...


sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry
Click to expand...



You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
Click to expand...

1. variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use a term describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the examples you use.

2. Another term you don’t understand is 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.

3. Observed Instances of Speciation

4. Some More Observed Speciation Events

5. CB910: New species

6. Tell us about what you home skoolurs dun' learn about religionism.


----------



## irosie91

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
Click to expand...



no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh


PoliticalChic said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.
Click to expand...

 
no----it  is due to my having read your posts.  
     Here's one----approx   "...    no speciation noted in recorded 
history.... "      Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo  development 
of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is 
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically 
distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable 
to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able 
to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION.    Darwin wrote his 
stuff a bare 120 years ago.    SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.  
However---mutations happen ALL DA time.    Most mutations are silent,  
some are fatal.    and some do produce a unique change in phenotype 
which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous.   To the present 
time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
Click to expand...

Do you home skoolurs study anything beside the Jimmy Swaggert channel for your skool werk?









						Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
					






					blogs.scientificamerican.com
				




We saw that the littlest differences can lead to dramatic variations when we looked at the wide variety in dogs. But despite their differences, all breeds of dogs are still the same species as each other and their ancestor. How do species split? What causes speciation? And what evidence do we have that speciation has ever occurred?

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.


----------



## PoliticalChic

After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.


*“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.” 



*



And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you home skoolurs study anything beside the Jimmy Swaggert channel for your skool werk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We saw that the littlest differences can lead to dramatic variations when we looked at the wide variety in dogs. But despite their differences, all breeds of dogs are still the same species as each other and their ancestor. How do species split? What causes speciation? And what evidence do we have that speciation has ever occurred?
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
Click to expand...

Boom! Class over!


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.” *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*



Fitness for survival, not the degenerative effects of hyper-religionism. 









						Extraordinarily rapid speciation in a marine fish
					

Divergent selection can lead to the evolution of distinct species, a process known as ecological speciation. Evidence for ecological speciation in the marine environment is scarce, and the few known examples have happened within a time frame of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. We...




					www.pnas.org
				




Divergent selection can lead to the evolution of distinct species, a process known as ecological speciation. Evidence for ecological speciation in the marine environment is scarce, and the few known examples have happened within a time frame of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. We present evidence that European flounders in the Baltic Sea exhibiting different breeding behaviors are a species pair arising from a recent event of ecological speciation. The two lineages diverged within less than 3,000 generations. This is the fastest event of speciation ever reported for any marine vertebrate. Extraordinarily rapid speciation driven by natural selection can therefore happen even in the marine environment.


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no----it  is due to my having read your posts.
> Here's one----approx   "...    no speciation noted in recorded
> history.... "      Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo  development
> of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is
> measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
> distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable
> to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able
> to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION.    Darwin wrote his
> stuff a bare 120 years ago.    SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.
> However---mutations happen ALL DA time.    Most mutations are silent,
> some are fatal.    and some do produce a unique change in phenotype
> which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous.   To the present
> time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation
Click to expand...



"....descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct...."


You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be more wrong.



Let's see how your knowledge of speciation compares to experts in the field, such as Mayr, Orr, and Coyne......


As always, I include sources:



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

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

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, , p. 25–39.


And certainly not phenotypic differences.


"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475



Even the dictionary puts you in your place.....

Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. 








						Definition of species | Dictionary.com
					

Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.




					www.dictionary.com


----------



## Hollie

Here am sum home skoolur studdie stuff.



CASE HISTORIES OF SPECIATION I&II 



			https://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no----it  is due to my having read your posts.
> Here's one----approx   "...    no speciation noted in recorded
> history.... "      Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo  development
> of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is
> measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
> distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable
> to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able
> to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION.    Darwin wrote his
> stuff a bare 120 years ago.    SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.
> However---mutations happen ALL DA time.    Most mutations are silent,
> some are fatal.    and some do produce a unique change in phenotype
> which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous.   To the present
> time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "....descended from a single ancestor which is
> measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
> distinct...."
> 
> 
> You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be more wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see how your knowledge of speciation compares to experts in the field, such as Mayr, Orr, and Coyne......
> 
> 
> As always, I include sources:
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, , p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> And certainly not phenotypic differences.
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> Even the dictionary puts you in your place.....
> 
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Even the folks at dictionary.com have taken night school courses beyond their Jerry Falwell day classes.











						Definition of speciation | Dictionary.com
					

Speciation definition, the formation of new species  as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other. See more.




					www.dictionary.com
				



*speciation*
[ spee-shee-ey-shuh n, -see-ey- ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR speciation ON THESAURUS.COM
*noun Biology.*
the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????


1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.


----------



## Hollie

Oh, dear. Might I suggest that the ND administration abandon their science curriculum in favor of the Benny Hinn Skool for the Silly?














						Evolutionary Biology // Department of Biological Sciences // University of Notre Dame
					

Advancing human and environmental health through teaching, research and outreach.




					biology.nd.edu
				




*Evolutionary Biology*
Organisms are evolving and changing every day, creating, molding, and even deleting genetic diversity. Meanwhile, next-generation sequencing is reinventing evolutionary biology and our ability to track and probe evolutionary processes. Our researchers use cutting-edge tools to understand evolutionary processes within whole genomes that lead to differences in organismal function. We also use evolutionary differences to detect species in nature and predict their responses to environmental change. We study the evolution in many organisms, mostly in wild populations, including human diseases and their hosts.


----------



## Dick Foster

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????



Darwin's theory of evolution makes sense to me. Much more than anything else on the topic has. I'll go along with Darwin for the most part. Although as a kid in Sunday school I was once told I was going to hell for thinking so. I suppose that Sunday school  teacher had never heard the passage judge not yet ye be judged.
 Of course that very same Sunday school teacher had said that it was a shame they didn't give Hitler more time so he could have wiped out all the Jews.
There just aren't any hypocrites quite as hypocritical as Southern Babtists. Well I suppose it could be debatable as to who the biggest drooling idiots are.


----------



## irosie91

PoliticalChic said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no----it  is due to my having read your posts.
> Here's one----approx   "...    no speciation noted in recorded
> history.... "      Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo  development
> of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is
> measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
> distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable
> to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able
> to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION.    Darwin wrote his
> stuff a bare 120 years ago.    SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.
> However---mutations happen ALL DA time.    Most mutations are silent,
> some are fatal.    and some do produce a unique change in phenotype
> which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous.   To the present
> time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "....descended from a single ancestor which is
> measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
> distinct...."
> 
> 
> You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be more wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see how your knowledge of speciation compares to experts in the field, such as Mayr, Orr, and Coyne......
> 
> 
> As always, I include sources:
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, , p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> And certainly not phenotypic differences.
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> Even the dictionary puts you in your place.....
> 
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
Click to expand...


chic      MY discussion of species is ENTIRELY consistent with that of your 
"experts"  and my discussion of the issue of speciation is also consistent.     
Your problem is that you fail to understand VERY SIMPLE 
words like  "phenotype".       It is very clear that biology is just not your 
field.     Did you pass plane geometry?     At no time have you ever manage 
to  "disprove"   evolution.     Fret not----there are similar people who insist 
that they have "disproved"  Freud.    They struggle in the same manner that 
you struggle


----------



## irosie91

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you home skoolurs study anything beside the Jimmy Swaggert channel for your skool werk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We saw that the littlest differences can lead to dramatic variations when we looked at the wide variety in dogs. But despite their differences, all breeds of dogs are still the same species as each other and their ancestor. How do species split? What causes speciation? And what evidence do we have that speciation has ever occurred?
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
Click to expand...


well----we have witnessed------or we are TOLD   (and I believe)  that 
there are mutations in those  DAMN ADENOVIRUSES   all the time.   
For those who would rather PLAY WITH SEMANTICS---you wanna called 
the cohorts of mutations    "STRAINS"   ???


----------



## Hollie

*Technical Paper Alert*

The following was posted back in 2013 and there doesn't appear to have been real success in gathering technical research.

There is a real need for that comprehensive ''*General Theory of Supernatural Creation''. *Just keep in mind the prerequisites as noted in bold, below.






						Call for Papers - Creation Biology Society
					






					www.creationbiology.org
				




*JCTSB:  *The _Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences_ is edited and published by the Creation Biology Society.  The journal serves as the outlet of technical research, reviews, and opinions of relevance to young-age creationist biology.  *As a young-age creationist journal, all submissions must be favorable to or at least respectful of creationism. *


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history.


Timeline of "recorded history" --bzzzt. Done.
Timeline of *the evolutionary history* of life------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_{...snip...}_--------------


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
Click to expand...





".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.


*“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”


*




And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dick Foster said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin's theory of evolution makes sense to me. Much more than anything else on the topic has. I'll go along with Darwin for the most part. Although as a kid in Sunday school I was once told I was going to hell for thinking so. I suppose that Sunday school  teacher had never heard the passage judge not yet ye be judged.
> Of course that very same Sunday school teacher had said that it was a shame they didn't give Hitler more time so he could have wiped out all the Jews.
> There just aren't any hypocrites quite as hypocritical as Southern Babtists. Well I suppose it could be debatable as to who the biggest drooling idiots are.
Click to expand...



"Darwin's theory of evolution makes sense to me. "

It may make sense, but it has been proven false by the evidence.


Darwin....from simple to complex.....all life from a common ancestor.

*NOT.*

Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And *the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!*

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that *throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang* bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; *all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)


Get that: *all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*

Poor, poor Darwin.



Even from Time magazine:

"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles *Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. *But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of *major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."*
Extrait de:


----------



## PoliticalChic

irosie91 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no----it  is due to my having read your posts.
> Here's one----approx   "...    no speciation noted in recorded
> history.... "      Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo  development
> of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is
> measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
> distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable
> to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able
> to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION.    Darwin wrote his
> stuff a bare 120 years ago.    SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.
> However---mutations happen ALL DA time.    Most mutations are silent,
> some are fatal.    and some do produce a unique change in phenotype
> which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous.   To the present
> time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "....descended from a single ancestor which is
> measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
> distinct...."
> 
> 
> You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be more wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see how your knowledge of speciation compares to experts in the field, such as Mayr, Orr, and Coyne......
> 
> 
> As always, I include sources:
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, , p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> And certainly not phenotypic differences.
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> Even the dictionary puts you in your place.....
> 
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> chic      MY discussion of species is ENTIRELY consistent with that of your
> "experts"  and my discussion of the issue of speciation is also consistent.
> Your problem is that you fail to understand VERY SIMPLE
> words like  "phenotype".       It is very clear that biology is just not your
> field.     Did you pass plane geometry?     At no time have you ever manage
> to  "disprove"   evolution.     Fret not----there are similar people who insist
> that they have "disproved"  Freud.    They struggle in the same manner that
> you struggle
Click to expand...




No sense trying to dig yourself out of the hole you're buried in.


Phenotypes are not part of the definition of speciation.

The inability to interbreed is the sine qua non.


I can't force you to learn.




"At no time have you ever manage
to  "disprove"   evolution. "

My intent and my success is in disproving Darwin's version.


Darwin....from simple to complex.....all life from a common ancestor.

*NOT.*

Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And *the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!*

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that *throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang* bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; *all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)


Get that: *all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*

Poor, poor Darwin.



Even from Time magazine:

"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles *Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. *But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of *major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."*
Extrait de:


----------



## Hollie

1. variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use a term describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the examples you use.

2. Another term you don’t understand is 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.

3. Observed Instances of Speciation

4. Some More Observed Speciation Events

5. CB910: New species


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, see, you *say *that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I PROVE it.
> 
> My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no----it  is due to my having read your posts.
> Here's one----approx   "...    no speciation noted in recorded
> history.... "      Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo  development
> of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is
> measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
> distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable
> to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able
> to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION.    Darwin wrote his
> stuff a bare 120 years ago.    SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.
> However---mutations happen ALL DA time.    Most mutations are silent,
> some are fatal.    and some do produce a unique change in phenotype
> which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous.   To the present
> time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "....descended from a single ancestor which is
> measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
> distinct...."
> 
> 
> You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be more wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see how your knowledge of speciation compares to experts in the field, such as Mayr, Orr, and Coyne......
> 
> 
> As always, I include sources:
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, , p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> And certainly not phenotypic differences.
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> Even the dictionary puts you in your place.....
> 
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> chic      MY discussion of species is ENTIRELY consistent with that of your
> "experts"  and my discussion of the issue of speciation is also consistent.
> Your problem is that you fail to understand VERY SIMPLE
> words like  "phenotype".       It is very clear that biology is just not your
> field.     Did you pass plane geometry?     At no time have you ever manage
> to  "disprove"   evolution.     Fret not----there are similar people who insist
> that they have "disproved"  Freud.    They struggle in the same manner that
> you struggle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sense trying to dig yourself out of the hole you're buried in.
> 
> 
> Phenotypes are not part of the definition of speciation.
> 
> The inability to interbreed is the sine qua non.
> 
> 
> I can't force you to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "At no time have you ever manage
> to  "disprove"   evolution. "
> 
> My intent and my success is in disproving Darwin's version.
> 
> 
> Darwin....from simple to complex.....all life from a common ancestor.
> 
> *NOT.*
> 
> Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And *the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!*
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that *throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang* bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; *all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> Get that: *all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> 
> Poor, poor Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> Even from Time magazine:
> 
> "Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles *Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. *But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of *major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."*
> Extrait de:
Click to expand...

I hadn’t realized Time Magazine was a science journal. The stuff you home skoolurs learn, eh?


----------



## Old Curmudgeon

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????



Soon as you see REAL anything you know it ain't gonna be real at all. ^ Case in point.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Curmudgeon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon as you see REAL anything you know it ain't gonna be real at all. ^ Case in point.
Click to expand...




Are we discussing your education?


----------



## Old Curmudgeon

Hollie said:


> I hadn’t realized Time Magazine was a science journal. The stuff you home skoolurs learn, eh?



You may come sit by me, my dear. Let us throw peanuts at the monkeys together.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????


So what's the truth? The White man's bible?


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
Click to expand...

Kevin Kelly has been a writer, photographer, conservationist, and student of Asian and digital culture.  The the finest credentials for this thread.

We've never seen new species appear?  Exactly wrong and the fossil record proves it.  If you go back in time you find many kinds of fossils but no primate fossils.  Today primate species abound.  Where did they come from?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Old Curmudgeon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soon as you see REAL anything you know it ain't gonna be real at all. ^ Case in point.
Click to expand...

Welcome aboard, fellow old fart!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
Click to expand...



The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.


As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.


The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kevin Kelly has been a writer, photographer, conservationist, and student of Asian and digital culture.  The the finest credentials for this thread.
> 
> We've never seen new species appear?  Exactly wrong and the fossil record proves it.  If you go back in time you find many kinds of fossils but no primate fossils.  Today primate species abound.  Where did they come from?
Click to expand...




And?




"We've never seen new species appear?"

That's correct.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


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


Never.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kevin Kelly has been a writer, photographer, conservationist, and student of Asian and digital culture.  The the finest credentials for this thread.
> 
> We've never seen new species appear?  Exactly wrong and the fossil record proves it.  If you go back in time you find many kinds of fossils but no primate fossils.  Today primate species abound.  Where did they come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We've never seen new species appear?"
> 
> That's correct.
> 
> 
> "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
> Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> 
> And...
> "There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
> More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
> Berlinski
> 
> 
> Never.
Click to expand...

You're not conversant at all. You're a fraud who cuts and pastes edited, parsed and phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya and some of the most notoriously crank fundie zealots.

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Kenyon

Dean H. Kenyon is professor emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, and one of the grand old men of the modern form of creationism known as Intelligent Design. Kenyon is, for instance, the author of the infamous _Of Pandas and People_ (with Percival Davis), the textbook that laid the foundation for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (after being quickly turned from a creationist book into an Intelligent Design book, which was possible since the views are the same). And yes, there is a pattern here – Kenyon, as most proponents of ID, are concerned with getting creationism into schools, writing textbooks, popular books (especially for children), and participating in debates. The ID movement isn’t, and has never been, about doing science. It should be mentioned that Kenyon still subscribes to young earth creationism.

Kenyon first started promoting creationism (the young earth variant) in the 1980s, calling it “scientific creationism” and trying to teach it in his classes at San Francisco State. That didn’t go down particularly well with his more scientifically minded colleagues. The fact that they determined that creationism couldn’t be taught as science didn’t exactly change Kenyon’s mind, so he continued teaching it in other courses, leading to some major controversies at the university (where Kenyon claimed that “objections to his teaching rested on a positivist view of what constitutes legitimate science,” which is just a weasel phrase for “I should be allowed to teach my intuitions and convictions as being _scientific _regardless of whether they are backed up by evidence”). In the 1980s he became infamous for his involvement in the standard-setting McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard courtcases. In fact, Kenyon pulled out right before he was expected to testify in the first case. In the latter, Kenyon supplied an affidavit which ended up constituting the main part of the defense.

In the 1990s Kenyon became affiliated with the Discovery Institute. He is currently board member for the Kolbe Center, a Catholic YEC group.
*Diagnosis: A grand old man of the wingnut fight against reality when reality don’t align with their wishful thinking. Has made major impacts and must still be considered dangerous.*


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
Click to expand...

And...






						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

(for a nice description of the difference between skepticism and paranoid denialism, I recommend these three articles: here, here, and here.)


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kevin Kelly has been a writer, photographer, conservationist, and student of Asian and digital culture.  The the finest credentials for this thread.
> 
> We've never seen new species appear?  Exactly wrong and the fossil record proves it.  If you go back in time you find many kinds of fossils but no primate fossils.  Today primate species abound.  Where did they come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We've never seen new species appear?"
> 
> That's correct.
> 
> 
> "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
> Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> 
> And...
> "There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
> More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
> Berlinski
> 
> 
> Never.
Click to expand...

Yet it is undeniable that it happened.  Even you don't deny that it happened and you've admitted you don't know how it came about.  Occam's Razor says that evolution has occurred since there is no other evidence or explanation for how species came into existence.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you provide no supporting documentation for your opinions. My assertions about biological evolution derive from the sciences of paleontology, anthropology, geology, oceanography, physics, archaeology, and other branches of science that conflict with the Bible. If you have evidence for the existence of the Gods, evidence of the Gods creating humans 6,000 years ago, evidence of any Biblical miracles, please present that evidence.

We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Biological evolution is one of those ideas. There will always be a significant number of people who for religious or philosophical reasons reject that idea. But there is a reason the _argumentum ad populum_ is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.

I noted that you continue to be confused about terms such as abiogenesis (the beginning of biological life) and Darwinian (biological) evolution because your earlier post made no distinction between those two processes. As I noted previously, you confuse macro-evolution with speciation which has abundant evidence.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
> Berlinski


More evidence FOR evolution.  Wheels have not evolved since the structures that might lead up to wheels offer no competitive advantage to the animal, just as the ToE would say.  If a species was just created from scratch you'd expect to see wheels and a host of other bizarre structures.  But you don't.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.
> 
> 
> 
> Just not your knowledge and education.  Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just lied again.
> 
> Seem to be your reputation.
> 
> We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.
> 
> If I lied please provide an example.  You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge.  Did your education provide you scientific knowledge?  I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed *no new species* emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes *no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, *where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce *speciation*… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that *the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "*
> Kevin Kelly, _Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines_, p. 475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then *everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”*
> 
> There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes* speciation…*.*one species becoming one or more other species*.
> Any changes, modifications, *differences within a species is not evolution*, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kevin Kelly has been a writer, photographer, conservationist, and student of Asian and digital culture.  The the finest credentials for this thread.
> 
> We've never seen new species appear?  Exactly wrong and the fossil record proves it.  If you go back in time you find many kinds of fossils but no primate fossils.  Today primate species abound.  Where did they come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We've never seen new species appear?"
> 
> That's correct.
> 
> 
> "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
> Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, _Brief of Appellants_, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
> 
> 
> And...
> "There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
> More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
> Berlinski
> 
> 
> Never.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it is undeniable that it happened.  Even you don't deny that it happened and you've admitted you don't know how it came about.  Occam's Razor says that evolution has occurred since there is no other evidence or explanation for how species came into existence.
Click to expand...



That has nothing to do with the discussion.

Get lost.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
> Berlinski
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence FOR evolution.  Wheels have not evolved since the structures that might lead up to wheels offer no competitive advantage to the animal, just as the ToE would say.  If a species was just created from scratch you'd expect to see wheels and a host of other bizarre structures.  But you don't.
Click to expand...



"Wheels????"


Gads, you're an imbecile.


----------



## PoliticalChic

*A century and a half and still no proof of Darwin’s theory.*
Lots of scientist are suspicious of the reasons, and doubtful of the truth of his theory….but Leftist academia is furious if any fail to bent the knee and the neck to their ‘religion.’


“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—*within existing species*. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, *only within existing species*.”
Jonathan Wells



In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and *“the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”* Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally.
“Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” _American Scientist_ 85 (1997): 516-518.




“Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another….. . *Since there is no evidence for species changes* between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution . . . throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.” —Bacteriologist Alan Linton, “Scant Search for the Maker,” Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001, Book Section, 29. Available online with registration (January 2006) at: 
http://www.thes.co.uk/search/story.aspx?story_id=72809.







Do you see how ignorant of the facts these government school believers are:



“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



_Someone wants the science-illiterate to believe Darwin’s theory has been proven._

Why?


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
> Berlinski
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence FOR evolution.  Wheels have not evolved since the structures that might lead up to wheels offer no competitive advantage to the animal, just as the ToE would say.  If a species was just created from scratch you'd expect to see wheels and a host of other bizarre structures.  But you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Wheels????"
> 
> 
> Gads, you're an imbecile.
Click to expand...

Just quoting from your post so that makes you the...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Is it just me thinking that this cutnpaste thread has not gone to plan ?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Tommy Tainant said:


> Is it just me thinking that this cutnpaste thread has not gone to plan ?




Of course it did.


It drew out and exposed all the morons who simply accept lies......and then try to deny that they are lies.


Let's prove it with you: any proof of Darwin's theory?


This is where you say.....'...duhhhhhh.......'


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> _Someone wants the science-illiterate to believe Darwin’s theory has been proven._
> 
> Why?


Why not?  The science-literate believe Darwin’s theory has been proven, maybe the illiterate might learn something from them.

Three-quarters (75%) of all college graduates and fully 81% of those with a postgraduate degree believe that humans have evolved over time. By comparison, 56% of those with a high school diploma or less say evolution has occurred.

And you claim there is no radical Right.

*Education and Knowledge*


----------



## Grumblenuts

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Someone wants the science-illiterate to believe Darwin’s theory has been proven._
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  The science-literate believe Darwin’s theory has been proven, maybe the illiterate might learn something from them.
> 
> Three-quarters (75%) of all college graduates and fully 81% of those with a postgraduate degree believe that humans have evolved over time. By comparison, 56% of those with a high school diploma or less say evolution has occurred.
> 
> And you claim there is no radical Right.
> 
> *Education and Knowledge*
Click to expand...

Pew, pew!,..
Pew, pew, pew!


----------



## Tommy Tainant

PoliticalChic said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it just me thinking that this cutnpaste thread has not gone to plan ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it did.
> 
> 
> It drew out and exposed all the morons who simply accept lies......and then try to deny that they are lies.
> 
> 
> Let's prove it with you: any proof of Darwin's theory?
> 
> 
> This is where you say.....'...duhhhhhh.......'
Click to expand...

Lol. I will just give you some space to respond to Hollie and others on this thread who arent buying your nonsense. Run along now.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Tommy Tainant said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it just me thinking that this cutnpaste thread has not gone to plan ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it did.
> 
> 
> It drew out and exposed all the morons who simply accept lies......and then try to deny that they are lies.
> 
> 
> Let's prove it with you: any proof of Darwin's theory?
> 
> 
> This is where you say.....'...duhhhhhh.......'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. I will just give you some space to respond to Hollie and others on this thread who arent buying your nonsense. Run along now.
Click to expand...



I don't have anything to do with that one.

Stand on your own hind legs.

If you can't...just say so.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it just me thinking that this cutnpaste thread has not gone to plan ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it did.
> 
> 
> It drew out and exposed all the morons who simply accept lies......and then try to deny that they are lies.
> 
> 
> Let's prove it with you: any proof of Darwin's theory?
> 
> 
> This is where you say.....'...duhhhhhh.......'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol. I will just give you some space to respond to Hollie and others on this thread who arent buying your nonsense. Run along now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have anything to do with that one.
> 
> Stand on your own hind legs.
> 
> If you can't...just say so.
Click to expand...

You have no option but to cower and dodge.


----------



## Hollie

How do you send the hyper-religious to their safe places of fear and ignorance?










						Library Guides: Genetics, Developmental Biology, and Evolutionary Biology: Find Articles
					

Resources for Penn State students and faculty in genetics, developmental biology, and evolutionary biology.




					guides.libraries.psu.edu


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Hollie said:


> How do you send the hyper-religious to their safe places of fear and ignorance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Library Guides: Genetics, Developmental Biology, and Evolutionary Biology: Find Articles
> 
> 
> Resources for Penn State students and faculty in genetics, developmental biology, and evolutionary biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guides.libraries.psu.edu


She does that every time she is called out on her crap.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Library Guides: Genetics, Developmental Biology, and Evolutionary Biology: Find Articles
					

Resources for Penn State students and faculty in genetics, developmental biology, and evolutionary biology.




					guides.libraries.psu.edu
				









Bet she's a great librarian!


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
Click to expand...

So you have nothing. Got it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Alexa, phone number for "academia" and "government school" please?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing. Got it.
Click to expand...



That's no way to speak to your teacher.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's no way to speak to your teacher.
Click to expand...

Your truth is non-existant apparently. All you can do is criticize others. And you're not even very good at that. You rely heavily on copy&paste, not your own mind.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's no way to speak to your teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your truth is non-existant apparently. All you can do is criticize others. And you're not even very good at that. You rely heavily on copy&paste, not your own mind.
Click to expand...



What I have done is prove that Darwinism is false, and there is no reason to treat it as factual.


Further, I have provided you with a lesson on microevolution so you never embarrass yourself again with a dumb statement such as this:

"Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution."




Don't forget...
After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.


*“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”


*




And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's no way to speak to your teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your truth is non-existant apparently. All you can do is criticize others. And you're not even very good at that. You rely heavily on copy&paste, not your own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I have done is prove that Darwinism is false, and there is no reason to treat it as factual.
> 
> 
> Further, I have provided you with a lesson on microevolution so you never embarrass yourself again with a dumb statement such as this:
> 
> "Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget...
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
Click to expand...

First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes.
Secondly, you're totally willfully ignorant of real science, so even I can't help you there.
Thirdly, evolution is a fact. Deal with it.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's no way to speak to your teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your truth is non-existant apparently. All you can do is criticize others. And you're not even very good at that. You rely heavily on copy&paste, not your own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I have done is prove that Darwinism is false, and there is no reason to treat it as factual.
> 
> 
> Further, I have provided you with a lesson on microevolution so you never embarrass yourself again with a dumb statement such as this:
> 
> "Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget...
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
Click to expand...

It's actually comical how easy it is to refute the ''quotes'' from religious extremists.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CA520: "Origin of Species" on speciation.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's no way to speak to your teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your truth is non-existant apparently. All you can do is criticize others. And you're not even very good at that. You rely heavily on copy&paste, not your own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I have done is prove that Darwinism is false, and there is no reason to treat it as factual.
> 
> 
> Further, I have provided you with a lesson on microevolution so you never embarrass yourself again with a dumb statement such as this:
> 
> "Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget...
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes.
> Secondly, you're totally willfully ignorant of real science, so even I can't help you there.
> Thirdly, evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
Click to expand...



"First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes."

That would explain why you are embarrassingly stupid.




If I had a dollar for every moron who read my posts, realized he had no answer, and then claimed he didn't read 'em....

...I'd be even wealthier than I am.


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's no way to speak to your teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your truth is non-existant apparently. All you can do is criticize others. And you're not even very good at that. You rely heavily on copy&paste, not your own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I have done is prove that Darwinism is false, and there is no reason to treat it as factual.
> 
> 
> Further, I have provided you with a lesson on microevolution so you never embarrass yourself again with a dumb statement such as this:
> 
> "Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget...
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes.
> Secondly, you're totally willfully ignorant of real science, so even I can't help you there.
> Thirdly, evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes."
> 
> That would explain why you are embarrassingly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a dollar for every moron who read my posts, realized he had no answer, and then claimed he didn't read 'em....
> 
> ...I'd be even wealthier than I am.
Click to expand...

I bet you don't even have a job, because you're here so often.

And I don't engage you often, because you're stuck on some kind of tilt of stupidity. Maybe you just need to get laid properly.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????



*Real Science…Not Darwin*

Comical, really. 7 pages of yet another thread containing all the same cut and paste “quotes” from the hyper-religious spammer. Yet another thread that devolves to the OP left to juvenile insults.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's no way to speak to your teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your truth is non-existant apparently. All you can do is criticize others. And you're not even very good at that. You rely heavily on copy&paste, not your own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I have done is prove that Darwinism is false, and there is no reason to treat it as factual.
> 
> 
> Further, I have provided you with a lesson on microevolution so you never embarrass yourself again with a dumb statement such as this:
> 
> "Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget...
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes.
> Secondly, you're totally willfully ignorant of real science, so even I can't help you there.
> Thirdly, evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes."
> 
> That would explain why you are embarrassingly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a dollar for every moron who read my posts, realized he had no answer, and then claimed he didn't read 'em....
> 
> ...I'd be even wealthier than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet you don't even have a job, because you're here so often.
> 
> And I don't engage you often, because you're stuck on some kind of tilt of stupidity. Maybe you just need to get laid properly.
Click to expand...




As soon as you dolts lose the argument, you default to the level you used in the third grade.


Your problem: I can explain facts to you, but I can't comprehend them for you.


This is your life.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
Click to expand...

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"


----------



## irosie91

fncceo said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Left believes that "Evolution" disproves the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's just stupid.
Click to expand...


true------but it is the issue which creates the anal itch that torments chic


----------



## Taz

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the truth? The White man's bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.
> 
> 
> As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.
> 
> 
> The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's no way to speak to your teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your truth is non-existant apparently. All you can do is criticize others. And you're not even very good at that. You rely heavily on copy&paste, not your own mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What I have done is prove that Darwinism is false, and there is no reason to treat it as factual.
> 
> 
> Further, I have provided you with a lesson on microevolution so you never embarrass yourself again with a dumb statement such as this:
> 
> "Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget...
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes.
> Secondly, you're totally willfully ignorant of real science, so even I can't help you there.
> Thirdly, evolution is a fact. Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "First of all, nobody reads your long winded copy&pastes."
> 
> That would explain why you are embarrassingly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had a dollar for every moron who read my posts, realized he had no answer, and then claimed he didn't read 'em....
> 
> ...I'd be even wealthier than I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet you don't even have a job, because you're here so often.
> 
> And I don't engage you often, because you're stuck on some kind of tilt of stupidity. Maybe you just need to get laid properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you dolts lose the argument, you default to the level you used in the third grade.
> 
> 
> Your problem: I can explain facts to you, but I can't comprehend them for you.
> 
> 
> This is your life.
Click to expand...

Better than being stuck on tilt in yours. But I bet you make some good kimchi.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
Click to expand...



Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
Click to expand...

1. A single truthful statement ”I don’t debate”.

2. You just mindlessly cut and paste “quotes” you  “quote-mine” from fundie websites.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
Click to expand...


1. Now this is pretty darn funny.

2. the OP is using “quotes” stolen from Harun Yahya.


			https://m.harunyahya.com/tr/books/973/The-Errors-of-the-American-National-Academy-of-Sciences/chapter/3217/The-nass-errors-regarding-speciation
		

.


----------



## irosie91

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Now this is pretty darn funny.
> 
> 2. the OP is using “quotes” stolen from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> https://m.harunyahya.com/tr/books/973/The-Errors-of-the-American-National-Academy-of-Sciences/chapter/3217/The-nass-errors-regarding-speciation
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


its the best she can do.    Keep in mind----"great scientists"   continue to insist 
that the koran is divine


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
Click to expand...


1. Here’s the “quote” referencing Gordon Taylor.

2. Reference #10 at Harun Yahya.


			https://m.harunyahya.com/en/Books/973/the-errors-of-the-american/chapter/3217
		


3. The OP is a Moslem waging a cut and paste gee-had.


----------



## irosie91

irosie91 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Now this is pretty darn funny.
> 
> 2. the OP is using “quotes” stolen from Harun Yahya.
> 
> 
> https://m.harunyahya.com/tr/books/973/The-Errors-of-the-American-National-Academy-of-Sciences/chapter/3217/The-nass-errors-regarding-speciation
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its the best she can do.    Keep in mind----"great scientists"   continue to insist
> that the koran is divine
Click to expand...


for the record-----anyone who has a professional credential of any kind
can make  REAL MONEY.   JUST  get in touch with the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal 
foundation with your treatise on   "science in the koran"


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
Click to expand...

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again


PoliticalChic said:


> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*


To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
Click to expand...




1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.

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

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

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.








						Definition of species | Dictionary.com
					

Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.




					www.dictionary.com
				





Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
Click to expand...




Now.....about those Galapagos finches has also failed the test.

"Evodevo advocates have not given up, though. In a 2005 book titled _The Plausibility of Evolution_, Harvard’s Marc W. Kirschner and Berkeley’s John C. Gerhart argued that regulatory changes in DNA could make it “easy” for animals to evolve. They wrote that if such changes could be experimentally produced in a laboratory test animal then “doubters would have to admit” the plausibility of Darwinism. They concluded: “Such experiments are just now becoming feasible.”²⁴ Yet Kirschner and Gerhart cited only one such experiment. When a severe drought killed most of the finches on an island in the Galápagos in 1977, biologists observed that the survivors had, on average, slightly larger beaks. In 2004, a research team reported that Galápagos finches with larger beaks have more of a protein called Bmp4 in their embryos. When the researchers experimentally altered the amount of Bmp4 in chicken embryos, they found changes in the shapes of the embryos’ beaks, though Bmp4 has other effects as well. *The researchers concluded that changes in Bmp4 may have contributed to the beak changes in Galápagos finches, though they did not produce a breed of chickens with modified beaks, much less a new species of finch. (Neither did the 1977 drought: when the rains returned, the average beak size reverted to normal.)*²⁵

25 Arhat Abzhanov, Meredith Protas, B. Rosemary Grant, Peter R. Grant, and Clifford J. Tabin, “Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin’s Finches,” Science 305, 2004, 1462–65. H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, “Oscillating Selection on Darwin’s Finches,” Nature 327, 1987, 511–13. Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 104–05, 176.



You've been taken for a ride.
Get off the Darwin bus.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
Click to expand...


*speciation*









						Definition of speciation | Dictionary.com
					

Speciation definition, the formation of new species  as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other. See more.




					www.dictionary.com
				




[ spee-shee-ey-shuh n, -see-ey- ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR speciation ON THESAURUS.COM
*noun Biology.*
the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

1. Observed Instances of Speciation

2. Some More Observed Speciation Events

3. CB910:  New species


----------



## Hollie

*Real Science...Not Religionism*










						Biologists watch speciation in a laboratory flask
					

Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask.




					phys.org
				





Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask.

In a month-long experiment using a virus harmless to humans, biologists working at the University of California San Diego and at Michigan State University documented the evolution of a virus into two incipient species—a process known as speciation that Charles Darwin proposed to explain the branching in the tree of life, where one species splits into two distinct species during evolution.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
Click to expand...

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
Click to expand...



I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
Click to expand...




			https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/evolution-and-society
		


Biological evolution is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines.


----------



## Crepitus

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????


Sorry Natasha, Darwin was a scientist, performing real science.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
Click to expand...

I have checked your sources (Harun Yahya, for example). Harun Yahya (whose real name is Adnan Oktar). Oktar is a failed college student who never studied science and eventually dropped out of college. This would account in large part for the staggering incompetence displayed in the "science" that he hopes to feed to the gullible and the ignorant.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????


How is it that the science supporters are “becoming rabid”?

It’s the Harun Yahya groupie that has opened multiple threads, cutting and pasting the same same phony, edited and altered “quotes” among those threads.

Did you fall down and bump your head on your Koran?


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....about those Galapagos finches has also failed the test.
> 
> "Evodevo advocates have not given up, though. In a 2005 book titled _The Plausibility of Evolution_, Harvard’s Marc W. Kirschner and Berkeley’s John C. Gerhart argued that regulatory changes in DNA could make it “easy” for animals to evolve. They wrote that if such changes could be experimentally produced in a laboratory test animal then “doubters would have to admit” the plausibility of Darwinism. They concluded: “Such experiments are just now becoming feasible.”²⁴ Yet Kirschner and Gerhart cited only one such experiment. When a severe drought killed most of the finches on an island in the Galápagos in 1977, biologists observed that the survivors had, on average, slightly larger beaks. In 2004, a research team reported that Galápagos finches with larger beaks have more of a protein called Bmp4 in their embryos. When the researchers experimentally altered the amount of Bmp4 in chicken embryos, they found changes in the shapes of the embryos’ beaks, though Bmp4 has other effects as well. *The researchers concluded that changes in Bmp4 may have contributed to the beak changes in Galápagos finches, though they did not produce a breed of chickens with modified beaks, much less a new species of finch. (Neither did the 1977 drought: when the rains returned, the average beak size reverted to normal.)*²⁵
> 
> 25 Arhat Abzhanov, Meredith Protas, B. Rosemary Grant, Peter R. Grant, and Clifford J. Tabin, “Bmp4 and Morphological Variation of Beaks in Darwin’s Finches,” Science 305, 2004, 1462–65. H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, “Oscillating Selection on Darwin’s Finches,” Nature 327, 1987, 511–13. Jonathan Weiner, The Beak of the Finch (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 104–05, 176.
> 
> 
> 
> You've been taken for a ride.
> Get off the Darwin bus.
Click to expand...

So your proof that a 2017 study witnessed the emergence of a new species of finches is fake is a 2004 study that showed changes in beaks but no new species? Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin’s finches | Science This is the 2018 article in science.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
Click to expand...

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
Click to expand...



I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
Click to expand...

1. False. You have dumped ''quotes'' from charlatans representing crank, creationist ministries. 

2. Your ''quotes'' from Dean Kenyon and David Berlinski are laughable as they are shills for creationist ministries with an announced agenda.

3. Charlatans from creation ministries do no research and submit no work for peer review.

4. Charlatans from the cults of creationist ministries have a motive to lie - it's in the ''statement of faith'' they agree to when they join the cult.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
Click to expand...

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.


----------



## miketx

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To whom?
Click to expand...

Imbeciles in colleges.


----------



## miketx

Let's ask one of them perfessers how comes ain't turnin into people anymore.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
Click to expand...



Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
*Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
Click to expand...

1. The above ''quote'' is found on the expected collection of fundie websites. They all have the same snipped ''quote'' which, as is typical for creationist hacks, and is edited to convey the creationist agenda.

2. Interestingly, the ''quote'' was one of many snipped portions of articles from various authors used by the Disco'tute to advance their ID'iot creationist agenda.

3. The NSCE was aware of the selected editing performed by the Disco'tute and forwarded a questionnaire to those charlatans: Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography:  Appendix | National Center for Science Education

4. The results were expected. The Disco'tute scrambled to cover themselves from liability,

_[In questionnaires sent after the Bibliography appeared on the Discovery Institute's web site with the disclaimer, the sentence "Please note that (perhaps having gotten wind of our questionnaire) the DI now disclaims any intention to portray your work either as supportive of intelligent design or as providing evidence against evolution: see http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?command=view& id=1127&program=CRSC%20Responses." appeared here. The same information was sent separately to those respondents to whom questionnaires were sent before the Bibliography appeared on the web site.]_


----------



## 22lcidw

Crepitus said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Natasha, Darwin was a scientist, performing real science.
Click to expand...

Since we killed God off in the 1970's after our peak and going to the moon with those religious flat worlders in charge, we have gotten poorer in real terms and are losing our tech lead.


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
Click to expand...

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.


Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.






			https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
Click to expand...




I believe you've missed the point.

The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.

I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.

My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.

Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.



"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
Click to expand...




BTW....I can provide dozens of anti-Darwin views by real scientists.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Click to expand...

"I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.''

That's so silly. None of the creation ministries you cut and paste ''quotes'' from do actual research. None of them publish in peer reviewed journals. Identify the research done by the charlatans at the Disco'tute. What research is being done at Answers in Genesis? Tell us what research is done at Harun Yahya. 

The point of peer review is to have others attempt to validate or to refute submitted data. That's how science works. "Belief" is not the measure. Testability is. For a theory to be considered scientific, it must run a continuous gauntlet of testing, replication and peer review. The creationist hacks who simply reiterate dogma because the dogma is within a “holy text” without any evidence, reasoning or testing is at best just reciting labels.


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com


..back in 2014 and concluded (in your opinion):


> Of course, the fact that classical evolutionary theory doesn't explain these sorts of things doesn't mean we should abandon the entire theory. There's a difference between a theory being wrong and being incomplete. In science, we cling to incomplete theories all the time. Especially when the alternative is complete ignorance.


That was then. Boy, just look at you now.. 


> Real Science…Not Darwin


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW....I can provide dozens of anti-Darwin views by real scientists.
Click to expand...

1. Yes. You can spam threads with repetitive cut and paste ''quotes''.  
2. Real scientists perform experimentation and publish their work for peer review. 
3. Identify the teaching universities or science journals that require a ''statement of faith''.


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.


Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species









						Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
					






					blogs.scientificamerican.com
				





Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com
> 
> 
> 
> ..back in 2014 and concluded (in your opinion):
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the fact that classical evolutionary theory doesn't explain these sorts of things doesn't mean we should abandon the entire theory. There's a difference between a theory being wrong and being incomplete. In science, we cling to incomplete theories all the time. Especially when the alternative is complete ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was then. Boy, just look at you now..
> 
> 
> 
> Real Science…Not Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



You aren't smart enough to realize that you are proof of the post.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
Click to expand...


Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007

*The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
Click to expand...


And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
Click to expand...




Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect


Continuing...


> Recent genomic analyses indicate that an early polyploidization event may predate the radiation of flowering plants (Bowers et al., 2003), suggesting that 100% of angiosperms are paleopolyploid. Unfortunately, evidence for such ancient polyploidization events is almost always tentative because of the loss of sequence homology and synteny over evolutionary time. Although polyploidization is less prevalent in animals, nearly 200 independent examples of polyploidy have been reported in insects *and vertebrates* (Table 1), with many more cases known among other invertebrate groups (Gregory and Mable, 2005).


That you imagine this reference helps your argument against Darwin is simply bizarre.


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
Click to expand...


Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
Click to expand...

Outside of your creation ministries, we actually do know speciation has occurred and there are many relevant examples.

You might want to pas ps that on to you the charlatans at Harun Yahya.

*Definition of speciation | Dictionary.com*
Definition of speciation from Dictionary.com, the world’s leading online source for English definitions, pronunciations, word origins, idioms, Word of the Day, and more.




www.dictionary.com

[ spee-shee-ey-shuh n, -see-ey- ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR speciation ON THESAURUS.COM
noun Biology.
the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

1. Observed Instances of Speciation

2. Some More Observed Speciation Events

3. CB910: New species


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect
> 
> 
> 
> Continuing...
> 
> 
> 
> Recent genomic analyses indicate that an early polyploidization event may predate the radiation of flowering plants (Bowers et al., 2003), suggesting that 100% of angiosperms are paleopolyploid. Unfortunately, evidence for such ancient polyploidization events is almost always tentative because of the loss of sequence homology and synteny over evolutionary time. Although polyploidization is less prevalent in animals, nearly 200 independent examples of polyploidy have been reported in insects *and vertebrates* (Table 1), with many more cases known among other invertebrate groups (Gregory and Mable, 2005).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you imagine this reference helps your argument against Darwin is simply bizarre.
Click to expand...




It isn't MY argument against the religion of Darwinism.....

"If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
Nancy Pearcey


----------



## Grumblenuts

> It isn't MY argument against the religion of Darwinism.....


This is not your thread?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
Click to expand...


How stereotypical. “Quote mining” Philip Johnson. You’re forced to “quote mine” creationist charlatans to press your agenda of fear and ignorance. 






						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Near-namesake of the (unfortunately) deceased but intellectually very much comparable Charles K. Johnson, Johnson is a retired Berkeley law professor and must perhaps be considered the very founder of the intelligent design movement (and founded, together with George Gilder, the Discovery Institute). The most important turnaround in Johnson’s career was when he became a born again Christian after divorce. He subsequently, and fully independently, realized that science didn't support the theory of evolution. What a coincidence.


His introduction of “intelligent design” came in his book ”Darwin on Trial”, which since Johnson presented evidence in the form of a mock trial (with legal standards of admissibility of evidence), rejected all scientific evidence in favor of anecdotal evidence – in addition to being (of course) utterly selective in what evidence to present. The point was, essentially, that since the evidence for theory of evolution didn’t provide absolute, logical, irrefutable proof, the theory has to be rejected (no one ever sees that kind of argument from misunderstanding of the role and standards of evidence pop up among climate change denialists, no?). The fact that intelligent design has failed utterly as a scientific theory does not seem to bother him.

Johnson’s vision of the mission of the Intelligent Design PR movement is not limited to evolutionary biology. Rather, the point is that all science lacks a proper theistic basis. Hence every field of science and indeed all public policy should be held hostage to theocratic organization. This is apparently why Johnson calls evolution the 'thin edge of the wedge' with which to 'split the log of materialism open'. This is a good resource on Johnson and his strategy. The idea is not to establish ID through science, but through public policy – hence the Discovery Institute’s focus, not on developing ID, but to get it into school curricula. See also this.

Thus Johnson is known for accepting not only creationism, but the whole full range of woo and crank ideas. He is, for instance, a HIV-denialist as well, having written several articles denying the link between HIV and AIDS.

Johnson has, however, remained relatively quiet the last 10 years after suffering a series of strokes, but he does make the occasional reappearance.

For fun, you can try scoring him on the crackpot index. Ed Brayton provides a brilliant guide here.

This is an interesting take on the whole creationist movement.
Diagnosis: Hyper-crackpot and one of the central founders of the denialist movement. His impact has been huge, but he seems to be semi-retired at present. Still dangerous, however.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> It isn't MY argument against the religion of Darwinism.....
> 
> 
> 
> This is not your thread?
Click to expand...



Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. *But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence*: *the Cambrian explosion* revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

Darwins said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin]. *The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”*
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



Yet, here you are kicking and screaming because I provide tons of scientists arguing against Darwinism.

It's because you were taught it as a fact.

Clearly it isn't.

Ask yourself why it so important for adherents to demand the bending of the knee and the neck to the false god, Darwin.


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
Click to expand...


We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.  

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect
> 
> 
> 
> Continuing...
> 
> 
> 
> Recent genomic analyses indicate that an early polyploidization event may predate the radiation of flowering plants (Bowers et al., 2003), suggesting that 100% of angiosperms are paleopolyploid. Unfortunately, evidence for such ancient polyploidization events is almost always tentative because of the loss of sequence homology and synteny over evolutionary time. Although polyploidization is less prevalent in animals, nearly 200 independent examples of polyploidy have been reported in insects *and vertebrates* (Table 1), with many more cases known among other invertebrate groups (Gregory and Mable, 2005).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you imagine this reference helps your argument against Darwin is simply bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't MY argument against the religion of Darwinism.....
> 
> "If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
> Nancy Pearcey
Click to expand...


There is an abundant collection of transitional fossils. The Harun Yahya madrassah will have you believe otherwise, but religious extremism is not a valid excuse for your ignorance.

1. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

2. CC200:  Transitional fossils

3. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> "If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
> Nancy Pearcey


Which makes perfect sense "because of the loss of sequence homology and synteny over evolutionary time. Although polyploidization is less prevalent in animals, nearly 200 independent examples of polyploidy have been reported" - also from one of your references. So you try to disclaim all credit while quoting conflicting _messages_ willy nilly. Ages of mess = your posting history it seems.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't MY argument against the religion of Darwinism.....
> 
> 
> 
> This is not your thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. *But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence*: *the Cambrian explosion* revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."
> Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.
> 
> Darwins said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin]. *The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”*
> Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, here you are kicking and screaming because I provide tons of scientists arguing against Darwinism.
> 
> It's because you were taught it as a fact.
> 
> Clearly it isn't.
> 
> Ask yourself why it so important for adherents to demand the bending of the knee and the neck to the false god, Darwin.
Click to expand...


Roger Lewin is a “science writer”.

It’s gotten so bad that you’re forced to “quote mine” from science fiction authors.


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> I provide tons of scientists arguing against Darwinism.
> 
> It's because you were taught it as a fact.


Wrong. I was taught that questioning theory, even well established theory, is crucial to scientific methodology and progress. As Hollie has well exposed here, you simply don't understand what the real scientists have actually said and done, so defer to like minded charlatans making similar fart noises.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
Click to expand...



We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

 a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
> Nancy Pearcey
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes perfect sense "because of the loss of sequence homology and synteny over evolutionary time. Although polyploidization is less prevalent in animals, nearly 200 independent examples of polyploidy have been reported" - also from one of your references. So you try to disclaim all credit while quoting conflicting _messages_ willy nilly. Ages of mess = your posting history it seems.
Click to expand...




"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275

Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology."Michael Behe
_Darwin's Black Box_ (1996), page 26
Reference given is to: Science Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, pp. 379-381
Which references: American Zoologist, 30:861-875 (1990)
CRITICS OF DARWINISM


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
Click to expand...


Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.

So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground


----------



## Blues Man

Cambrian Period - Paleoclimate
					

Global climate during Cambrian time was probably warmer and more equable than today. An absence of either land or landlocked seas at the Cambrian poles may have prevented the accumulation of polar ice caps. The general absence of glacial till deposits of Cambrian age is more notable, because...



					www.britannica.com
				




The preservation of the record of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition was significantly affected by global changes in sea level. During latest Precambrian time, the sea level was relatively low, resulting in spatially restricted oceans and expanded continents. Throughout much of the Cambrian, rising seas gradually flooded vast land areas. Sediment was eroded from the continents and deposited in adjacent seas. Because of low sea level, the sedimentary and fossil records of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition are generally most complete toward the outer margins of continental shelves. As a corollary, the time gaps, represented by the boundary surface, generally increase in landward directions. This has led to an absence or serious incompleteness of the transitional record in most areas, particularly in those of classical Cambrian studies. As a result, it is thought that this incompleteness, combined with a general deficiency in knowledge—prior to the mid-1900s—of Precambrian communities, contributed significantly to the long-held notion of an abrupt or sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provide tons of scientists arguing against Darwinism.
> 
> It's because you were taught it as a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. I was taught that questioning theory, even well established theory, is crucial to scientific methodology and progress. As Hollie has well exposed here, you simply don't understand what the real scientists have actually said and done, so defer to like minded charlatans making similar fart noises.
Click to expand...



If you are claiming that government school doesn't treat Darwinism as a fact.....you are lying.


Wikipedia, controlled by Leftists, writes:


"Why is evolution considered to be a scientific theory?
Natural selection provides the outline of an explanatory *theory*." Biologists *consider* it to be a *scientific* fact that *evolution* has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and *evolution* is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants."

*Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
Click to expand...




"The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."


Why?


It is used in school and in texts as evidence.


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

*The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> Cambrian Period - Paleoclimate
> 
> 
> Global climate during Cambrian time was probably warmer and more equable than today. An absence of either land or landlocked seas at the Cambrian poles may have prevented the accumulation of polar ice caps. The general absence of glacial till deposits of Cambrian age is more notable, because...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preservation of the record of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition was significantly affected by global changes in sea level. During latest Precambrian time, the sea level was relatively low, resulting in spatially restricted oceans and expanded continents. Throughout much of the Cambrian, rising seas gradually flooded vast land areas. Sediment was eroded from the continents and deposited in adjacent seas. Because of low sea level, the sedimentary and fossil records of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition are generally most complete toward the outer margins of continental shelves. As a corollary, the time gaps, represented by the boundary surface, generally increase in landward directions. This has led to an absence or serious incompleteness of the transitional record in most areas, particularly in those of classical Cambrian studies. As a result, it is thought that this incompleteness, combined with a general deficiency in knowledge—prior to the mid-1900s—of Precambrian communities, contributed significantly to the long-held notion of an abrupt or sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils.




Watch this:


To further isolate the problem for Darwin's apologists, although one can certainly argue that the fossil record does not preserve soft parts as readily as hard parts, it has preserved many soft-bodied animals, organs, and anatomical structures from both the Cambrian and Precambrian periods. Myers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 61.

a. Case in point: sedimentary rock in various places around the world have preserved fossilized colonial blue-green algae, other single-celled algae, and eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus). Brocks, et al., "Archean Molecular Fossils and the Early Rise of Eukaryotes" Archean Molecular Fossils and the Early Rise of Eukaryotes | Science

b. The Burgess Shale, the same: numerous examples of entirely soft-bodied organism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Darwin based his theory on the fossil record.

Was he wrong about that?

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. " Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


How about we relate this to schoolchilden?

Why not?


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
Click to expand...


I told you why.

And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?









						Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
					

The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.




					biologos.org
				




Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
Click to expand...



Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.


“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)

Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?

Why?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Why are the vast majority of your quotes from 30 or more years ago, practically none from the current century, why?


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cambrian Period - Paleoclimate
> 
> 
> Global climate during Cambrian time was probably warmer and more equable than today. An absence of either land or landlocked seas at the Cambrian poles may have prevented the accumulation of polar ice caps. The general absence of glacial till deposits of Cambrian age is more notable, because...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The preservation of the record of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition was significantly affected by global changes in sea level. During latest Precambrian time, the sea level was relatively low, resulting in spatially restricted oceans and expanded continents. Throughout much of the Cambrian, rising seas gradually flooded vast land areas. Sediment was eroded from the continents and deposited in adjacent seas. Because of low sea level, the sedimentary and fossil records of the Precambrian-Cambrian transition are generally most complete toward the outer margins of continental shelves. As a corollary, the time gaps, represented by the boundary surface, generally increase in landward directions. This has led to an absence or serious incompleteness of the transitional record in most areas, particularly in those of classical Cambrian studies. As a result, it is thought that this incompleteness, combined with a general deficiency in knowledge—prior to the mid-1900s—of Precambrian communities, contributed significantly to the long-held notion of an abrupt or sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> 
> To further isolate the problem for Darwin's apologists, although one can certainly argue that the fossil record does not preserve soft parts as readily as hard parts, it has preserved many soft-bodied animals, organs, and anatomical structures from both the Cambrian and Precambrian periods. Myers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 61.
> 
> a. Case in point: sedimentary rock in various places around the world have preserved fossilized colonial blue-green algae, other single-celled algae, and eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus). Brocks, et al., "Archean Molecular Fossils and the Early Rise of Eukaryotes" Archean Molecular Fossils and the Early Rise of Eukaryotes | Science
> 
> b. The Burgess Shale, the same: numerous examples of entirely soft-bodied organism.
Click to expand...


Look all I ever said about Darwinsim is that there are examples that fit his theory.

We know speciation occurs in plants and that it can occur in a very short period of time.  We also have what can be called preliminary speciation observed in birds over a very short period






						Speciation in real time
					






					evolution.berkeley.edu
				




And do you really think we have a fossil record of absolutely every life form that ever existed?

Only when we have that can anyone say with certainty what really happened.  Since we will never have that complete fossil record all we will ever have is theories

Very much like the origin of the universe.  Until we know what happened before the creation event all we can do is theorize.


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> Why are the vast majority of your quotes from 30 or more years ago, practically none from the current century, why?




That's a lie.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?



You dumped the above fraud “quote” into the other nonsense thread you opened.

My, but you are a rather desperate fundie.


Cutting and pasting the same fraud.

There is no valid link. This is a cheap creationist fraud that appears to link to a science journal but redirects elsewhere.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists(http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)





No link to _Nature_ exists. The link redirects here: freerepublic.com/focus/fr/854288/posts
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor
Click to expand...



I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

Darwinism is consistent with testing and observation.

Your preferred method of fear and ignore, ie. Harun Yahya'ism is not.


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
> You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.
Click to expand...


You don't know the answer either.  And I have told you why it can't be answered.

We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.

All we have are theories.  All you have is a theory.  Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Lol


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
> You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the answer either.  And I have told you why it can't be answered.
> 
> We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.
> 
> All we have are theories.  All you have is a theory.  Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?
Click to expand...



You've changed the question.

It is this: why, since Darwin's Theory is flawed, proven wrong, not documented in the evidence, why is it imposed in schools as if a fact?


And.....I do know the answer.
And I believe you're smart enough to know the answer, as well.

Just not brave enough to state it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> Lol




Dodged the question again.

You're pretty gutless, huh?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
> You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the answer either.  And I have told you why it can't be answered.
> 
> We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.
> 
> All we have are theories.  All you have is a theory.  Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've changed the question.
> 
> It is this: why, since Darwin's Theory is flawed, proven wrong, not documented in the evidence, why is it imposed in schools as if a fact?
> 
> 
> And.....I do know the answer.
> And I believe you're smart enough to know the answer, as well.
> 
> Just not brave enough to state it.
Click to expand...







Harun Yahya groupies have difficulty with science terms and definitions so I’m happy to lend an assist for the learning challenged. 






__





						Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				






hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a _fact_. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact _mechanism_of evolution; there are several _theories_ of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:



> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse 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--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 don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
> Nancy Pearcey
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes perfect sense "because of the loss of sequence homology and synteny over evolutionary time. Although polyploidization is less prevalent in animals, nearly 200 independent examples of polyploidy have been reported" - also from one of your references. So you try to disclaim all credit while quoting conflicting _messages_ willy nilly. Ages of mess = your posting history it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> Lynn Margulis says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology."Michael Behe
> _Darwin's Black Box_ (1996), page 26
> Reference given is to: Science Vol. 252, 19 April 1991, pp. 379-381
> Which references: American Zoologist, 30:861-875 (1990)
> CRITICS OF DARWINISM
Click to expand...




			https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31485065_Darwinism_The_Refutation_of_a_Myth
		


“... appears that Lovtrup is defending macro-mutations, and he rejects micro-mutations as the sole mechanism of evolution (p261,274). Indeed on p369 we find: "It thus appears that all the objections against the macromutation theory may easily be met, and this is in itself perhaps the
most compelling evidence in its favour“


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodged the question again.
> 
> You're pretty gutless, huh?
Click to expand...

Question? I wasn't even addressing you. 
No sense of humor? Figures.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Click to expand...

I didn't


PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Click to expand...

I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.

Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.

Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
Click to expand...




"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275


"By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " 
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?

Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Click to expand...

Richard Francis is a freelance science writer.




Francis Hitching is one, world class whack job.





__





						Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				




Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books, _The Neck of the Giraffe_. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force, but does not like Darwinism.


Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In _The Neck of the Giraffe_ he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of _The Neck of the Giraffe_ that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, _The Neck of the Giraffe,_ is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."

Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on BBC television. The reference work _Contemporary Authors,_ Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: _Earth Magic,_ _Dowsing: The Psi Connection,_ _Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained,_ _Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural_ and _Instead of Darwin_.


It appears the OP spends an inordinate amount of time trolling some very, very odd people with very, very odd notions.


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodged the question again.
> 
> You're pretty gutless, huh?
Click to expand...

Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of the "Christian dark ages"?
Why the demand that Christian theory be imposed on the uninformed?


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Click to expand...

First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.

Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.

Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.

As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.

By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?


----------



## anynameyouwish

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????




there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.


in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!

you saying it doesn't make it so.


----------



## Grumblenuts

forkup said:


> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?


Just not in them damned gubmint pubick skools!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodged the question again.
> 
> You're pretty gutless, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of the "Christian dark ages"?
> Why the demand that Christian theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Click to expand...




You're lying in both comments.


Shows lack of upbringing, and how deeply wounded you are when your religion, Darwinism, is criticized.


I don't believe there is any medication for your condition.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Click to expand...


Is the quote correct?

Of course it is.

We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.

It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.



*“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*

. *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine

“*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”



“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” 
Philip Zaleski


----------



## PoliticalChic

anynameyouwish said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
> 
> 
> in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!
> 
> you saying it doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...




See if you can provide the 'evidence.'

I know you won't mind being wrong.....you prove that every day.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, *they simply aren't there;* at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either *they don't exist at all*, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski





> *Philip Zaleski* is the author and editor of several books on religion and spirituality, including The Recollected Heart,[1] The Benedictines of Petersham,[2] and Gifts of the Spirit.[3] In addition, he is coauthor with his wife Carol Zaleski of The Book of Heaven,[4] Prayer: A History,[5][6] and The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of The Inklings J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams.


See? "Real Science…Not Darwin"


----------



## esalla

PoliticalChic said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
> 
> 
> in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!
> 
> you saying it doesn't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See if you can provide the 'evidence.'
> 
> I know you won't mind being wrong.....you prove that every day.
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, *they simply aren't there;* at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either *they don't exist at all*, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
Click to expand...

So what you seem to be saying is that God kept fucking up and had to constantly reinvent new stuff because the old stuff all died off

Did that ever cross your mind?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
Click to expand...

As expected, you have returned to your usual habit of selectively editing “quotes” to press your young earth creationist agenda.


The edited “quote” you dumped into this thread is one you have used countless times in spite of you knowing it’s out of context and dishonestly edited.

“To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer”

As you know, your dishonesty with the above “quote” has been pointed out repeatedly yet here you are, a serial fraud.





__





						Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				





*Quote #2.4*
[Re: The fossil record is incorrectly presented as incontrovertible evidence of the validity of evolutionary theory]



> "The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." - The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Penguins Books, New York, Edition 6, p. 310.


Representative quote miners: The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation and The Creation Explanation: The Primeval World -- Fossils, Geology & Earth History: What Do the Fossils Say?

The more complete context is:



> To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Several eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their head, were until recently convinced that we beheld in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the first dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and E. Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy. Not very long ago M. Barrande added another and lower stage, abounding with new and peculiar species, beneath the then known Silurian system; and now, still lower down in the Lower Cambrian formation, Mr. Hicks has found in South Wales beds rich in trilobites, and containing various molluscs and annelids. The presence of phosphatic nodules and bituminous matter, even in some of the lowest azoic rocks, probably indicates life at these periods; and the existence of the Eozoon in the Laurentian formation of Canada is generally admitted. There are three great series of strata beneath the Silurian system in Canada, in the lowest of which the Eozoon is found. Sir W. Logan states that their "united thickness may possibly far surpass that of all the succeeding rocks, from the base of the palæozoic series to the present time. We are thus carried back to a period so remote that the appearance of the so-called primordial fauna (of Barrande) may by some be considered as a comparatively modern event." The Eozoon belongs to the most lowly organised of all classes of animals, but is highly organised for its class; it existed in count less numbers, and, as Dr. Dawson has remarked, certainly preyed on other minute organic beings, which must have lived in great numbers. Thus the words, which I wrote in 1859, about the existence of living beings long before the Cambrian period, and which are almost the same with those since used by Sir W. Logan, have proved true. Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more invariably it has suffered extreme denudation and metamorphism.





> The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the several successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea. - Origin of Species, 6th Ed. John Murray, 1872, Chapter 10, pp. 286-288.


Darwin is concerned about the lack of fossils before the Cambrian, and seeks to explain it in terms of the wearing away of the earlier strata. He notes here (sixth edition, 1872) that he had said in 1859 (first edition) that fossils would be found in earlier strata, and they eventually were. However, Darwin was probably mislead about the Eozoon formations, as they are not currently considered a real fossil but a metamorphic feature formed from the segregation of minerals in marble through the influence of great heat and pressure.

Tectonic subduction, something that Darwin could not known of, has destroyed some of the relevant material but mostly he was right. The older the sediment, the greater the chance that it has either eroded away or been metamorphosed to an extent that fossils are destroyed. Even so, we have multicellular fossils now back to the Ediacaran (circa 580 million years before the present) and single cell fossils arguably back to 3.75 billion years. The valid argument no longer has any purchase, and Darwin has been vindicated.

Citing it out of the specific context suggests Darwin thought there were a lot of things he could not explain using evolution, and that he knew it was false. This is extraordinarily bad quote mining.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Philip Zaleski* is the author and editor of several books on religion and spirituality, including The Recollected Heart,[1] The Benedictines of Petersham,[2] and Gifts of the Spirit.[3] In addition, he is coauthor with his wife Carol Zaleski of The Book of Heaven,[4] Prayer: A History,[5][6] and The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of The Inklings J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See? "Real Science…Not Darwin"
Click to expand...



Is his quote correct......and, for you, painful?

The rest of what you wrote has not a thing to do with the truth of his quote.

Now.....truth, is something foreign to you.

Did you want to apologize for the two lies you implied about me in your previous post?
I find that with a certain regularity, your sort, believers in Darwin, have no compunction about lying.
So very many see no problem with it when left speechless by the the evidence.


----------



## PoliticalChic

esalla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
> 
> 
> in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!
> 
> you saying it doesn't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See if you can provide the 'evidence.'
> 
> I know you won't mind being wrong.....you prove that every day.
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, *they simply aren't there;* at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either *they don't exist at all*, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you seem to be saying is that God kept fucking up and had to constantly reinvent new stuff because the old stuff all died off
> 
> Did that ever cross your mind?
Click to expand...



Vulgarity is a sure sign that one recognizes having lost the debate.


----------



## esalla

PoliticalChic said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
> 
> 
> in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!
> 
> you saying it doesn't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See if you can provide the 'evidence.'
> 
> I know you won't mind being wrong.....you prove that every day.
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, *they simply aren't there;* at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either *they don't exist at all*, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you seem to be saying is that God kept fucking up and had to constantly reinvent new stuff because the old stuff all died off
> 
> Did that ever cross your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Vulgarity is a sure sign that one recognizes having lost the debate.
Click to expand...

Please explain why the life that God made all sucked so bad that 98 percent of it went extinct forcing God to keep reinventing new stuff?  Is God stupid or something?


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> Did you want to apologize for the two lies you implied about me in your previous post?


No, why, were you considering apologizing for your original two strawman assertions (lies) that I subsequently tweaked to mock you with?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is MORE evidence that evolution is TRUE than that the bible is true.
> 
> 
> in fact...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that god exists at all!
> 
> you saying it doesn't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See if you can provide the 'evidence.'
> 
> I know you won't mind being wrong.....you prove that every day.
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, *they simply aren't there;* at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either *they don't exist at all*, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you seem to be saying is that God kept fucking up and had to constantly reinvent new stuff because the old stuff all died off
> 
> Did that ever cross your mind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Vulgarity is a sure sign that one recognizes having lost the debate.
Click to expand...


More like edited, parsed and falsified ''quotes'' means one has lost the debate and simultaneously lost at life. 

Have you considered joining Francis Hitching when he goes dowsing to learn a trade?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Philip Zaleski* is the author and editor of several books on religion and spirituality, including The Recollected Heart,[1] The Benedictines of Petersham,[2] and Gifts of the Spirit.[3] In addition, he is coauthor with his wife Carol Zaleski of The Book of Heaven,[4] Prayer: A History,[5][6] and The Fellowship: The Literary Lives of The Inklings J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Charles Williams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See? "Real Science…Not Darwin"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is his quote correct......and, for you, painful?
> 
> The rest of what you wrote has not a thing to do with the truth of his quote.
> 
> Now.....truth, is something foreign to you.
> 
> Did you want to apologize for the two lies you implied about me in your previous post?
> I find that with a certain regularity, your sort, believers in Darwin, have no compunction about lying.
> So very many see no problem with it when left speechless by the the evidence.
Click to expand...


What evidence did Francis Hitching find when dowsing?


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
Click to expand...

Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.

I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.

As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.


----------



## esalla

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
Click to expand...

Evolution is not a credible theory because all life even the simplest forms are comprised of thousands of lines of code that Darwin never saw nor can this code ever spontaneously generate


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you want to apologize for the two lies you implied about me in your previous post?
> 
> 
> 
> No, why, were you considering apologizing for your original two strawman assertions (lies) that I subsequently tweaked to mock you with?
Click to expand...



I didn't believe you'd apologize, I just wanted to have you remind all what a lowlives your sort are.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
Click to expand...



I wrote this earlier:

The Biology Term For History

 One of the most needy of posters wrote:

“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution



So…..the biology term for history? *Evolution*.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
Click to expand...



You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.


What's the distinction you're trying to make?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
Click to expand...

Odd that you think public school children are misinformed about valid scientific theories like gravity, biological evolution, medicine curing disease, etc.

Your alternative would be teaching a flat earth, a 6.000 year old planet and talking snakes?


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
Click to expand...

And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.

Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.
> 
> Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
Click to expand...



Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:

"and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."

I never lie.



But watch how easily I prove you are lying:

. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.


Hmm, ..let's see here.. 1983, 1982, 1982, yep, yep,.. Help, I think someone went and got themself stuck back in the early 80's and can't get up!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, ..let's see here.. 1983, 1982, 1982, yep, yep,.. Help, I think someone went and got themself stuck back in the early 80's and can't get up!
Click to expand...



In "The Plausibility of Evolution," Harvard evo-devo advocate Marc Kirschner and Berkeley's John Gerhart give this example: when drought killed most of the finches on the Galapagos in 1977, survivors were found to have a slightly larger beak...traced to more of a protein Bmp4 in their embryos.
So...researchers tried to add Bmp4 to chick embryos...and found *changes in beak shape!*

a. But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, *as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal.* Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [*Science. 2004*] - PubMed - NCBI
and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.
> 
> Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
> 
> "and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
Click to expand...

There is an abundant collection of transitional fossils. Here’s one example.

The Harun Yahya madrassah will have you believe otherwise, but religious extremism is not a valid excuse for your ignorance.









						Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil
					

Archaeopteryx was an evolutionary link between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Scientists long thought Archaeopteryx was the first bird, but recent discoveries have made them rethink that status.




					www.livescience.com
				




*Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil*
By Joseph Castro - Live Science Contributor March 14, 2018


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, ..let's see here.. 1983, 1982, 1982, yep, yep,.. Help, I think someone went and got themself stuck back in the early 80's and can't get up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In "The Plausibility of Evolution," Harvard evo-devo advocate Marc Kirschner and Berkeley's John Gerhart give this example: when drought killed most of the finches on the Galapagos in 1977, survivors were found to have a slightly larger beak...traced to more of a protein Bmp4 in their embryos.
> So...researchers tried to add Bmp4 to chick embryos...and found *changes in beak shape!*
> 
> a. But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, *as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal.* Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [*Science. 2004*] - PubMed - NCBI
> and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
> and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
> So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.
Click to expand...

Because you lack some basic cognitive skills, you apparently missed the connections between adaptation to an environment and the process known as fitness for survival.

What’s another description for “developmental changes to an environment”?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, ..let's see here.. 1983, 1982, 1982, yep, yep,.. Help, I think someone went and got themself stuck back in the early 80's and can't get up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In "The Plausibility of Evolution," Harvard evo-devo advocate Marc Kirschner and Berkeley's John Gerhart give this example: when drought killed most of the finches on the Galapagos in 1977, survivors were found to have a slightly larger beak...traced to more of a protein Bmp4 in their embryos.
> So...researchers tried to add Bmp4 to chick embryos...and found *changes in beak shape!*
> 
> a. But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, *as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal.* Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [*Science. 2004*] - PubMed - NCBI
> and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
> and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
> So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.
Click to expand...

As usual, your “quotes” are stolen from non-scientists.

Is Jonathan Weiner a dowser?


“Jonathan Weiner is a writer of non-fiction books based on his biological observations, focusing particularly on evolution in the Galápagos Islands, genetics, and the environment. His latest book is "Long for This World: The Strange Science of Immortality" a look at the scientific search for the Fountain of Youth.”


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.
> 
> Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
> 
> "and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
Click to expand...




PoliticalChic said:


> I never lie.


 Oh really?


PoliticalChic said:


> there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.


 Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?


PoliticalChic said:


> the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.


 Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal


PoliticalChic said:


> Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another


 Guess what?  This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals

*So explain to me please how you don't lie?*


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.
> 
> Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
> 
> "and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what?  This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals
> 
> *So explain to me please how you don't lie?*
Click to expand...




"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."


			https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
		


"In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that *clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits* in spite of 4,000 years of trying. .... 
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…*only additional evidence of the fixity of species.* '" 
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.
> 
> Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
> 
> "and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what?  This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals
> 
> *So explain to me please how you don't lie?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> 
> 
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> 
> "In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
> "He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that *clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits* in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
> ... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…*only additional evidence of the fixity of species.* '"
> Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor
Click to expand...

Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by the people you quoted saying something almost 40 years ago in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:


_{..no quotes from anyone here..}
{..not to mention lying..}
{..still waiting..}_


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.
> 
> Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
> 
> "and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what?  This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals
> 
> *So explain to me please how you don't lie?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> 
> 
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> 
> "In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
> "He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that *clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits* in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
> ... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…*only additional evidence of the fixity of species.* '"
> Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by you in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.
Click to expand...




"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868


“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”― Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, the American Museum of Natural History


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.
> 
> Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
> 
> "and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what?  This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals
> 
> *So explain to me please how you don't lie?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> 
> 
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> 
> "In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
> "He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that *clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits* in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
> ... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…*only additional evidence of the fixity of species.* '"
> Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by you in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”― Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, the American Museum of Natural History
Click to expand...

Nope still no mulligan, you can quote the pope for all I care.


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
> You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the answer either.  And I have told you why it can't be answered.
> 
> We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.
> 
> All we have are theories.  All you have is a theory.  Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've changed the question.
> 
> It is this: why, since Darwin's Theory is flawed, proven wrong, not documented in the evidence, why is it imposed in schools as if a fact?
> 
> 
> And.....I do know the answer.
> And I believe you're smart enough to know the answer, as well.
> 
> Just not brave enough to state it.
Click to expand...


It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.

By definition a theory is not fact.  

And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.

Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.

So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.
> 
> Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
> 
> "and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what?  This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals
> 
> *So explain to me please how you don't lie?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> 
> 
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> 
> "In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
> "He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that *clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits* in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
> ... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…*only additional evidence of the fixity of species.* '"
> Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by you in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”― Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, the American Museum of Natural History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope still no mulligan, you can quote the pope for all I care.
Click to expand...


"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868 



In his book “The Intelligent Universe” (1983) Hoyle wrote: “Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?”

According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros). That is about the same chance as throwing 50,000 sixes in a row with a die. Or as Hoyle describes it: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein… I am at a loss to understand biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious.” (“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.)



It appears his statement is contrary to your claim of "no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."


Did you want to retract that claim?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
> You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the answer either.  And I have told you why it can't be answered.
> 
> We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.
> 
> All we have are theories.  All you have is a theory.  Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've changed the question.
> 
> It is this: why, since Darwin's Theory is flawed, proven wrong, not documented in the evidence, why is it imposed in schools as if a fact?
> 
> 
> And.....I do know the answer.
> And I believe you're smart enough to know the answer, as well.
> 
> Just not brave enough to state it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.
> 
> By definition a theory is not fact.
> 
> And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.
> 
> Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.
> 
> So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?
Click to expand...



You are mis-remembering your instruction.

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”


The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
> You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the answer either.  And I have told you why it can't be answered.
> 
> We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.
> 
> All we have are theories.  All you have is a theory.  Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've changed the question.
> 
> It is this: why, since Darwin's Theory is flawed, proven wrong, not documented in the evidence, why is it imposed in schools as if a fact?
> 
> 
> And.....I do know the answer.
> And I believe you're smart enough to know the answer, as well.
> 
> Just not brave enough to state it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.
> 
> By definition a theory is not fact.
> 
> And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.
> 
> Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.
> 
> So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are mis-remembering your instruction.
> 
> In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”
> 
> 
> The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.
Click to expand...


So show me in any widely used public school text where it definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a fact.

If it is indeed taught as fact it should be easy for you to provide the requested references.


----------



## forkup

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.
> 
> Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
> 
> "and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what?  This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals
> 
> *So explain to me please how you don't lie?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> 
> 
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> 
> "In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
> "He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that *clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits* in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
> ... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…*only additional evidence of the fixity of species.* '"
> Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by you in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”― Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, the American Museum of Natural History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope still no mulligan, you can quote the pope for all I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> 
> In his book “The Intelligent Universe” (1983) Hoyle wrote: “Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?”
> 
> According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros). That is about the same chance as throwing 50,000 sixes in a row with a die. Or as Hoyle describes it: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein… I am at a loss to understand biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious.” (“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.)
> 
> 
> 
> It appears his statement is contrary to your claim of "no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> 
> 
> Did you want to retract that claim?
Click to expand...

NO MULLIGAN, you want to play further first you will have to address the fossil record. Not some quote from someone you found online who said something in 1983 but actually address it. I gave several transitional forms between land mammals and whales and reptiles and mammals, anything that's not that will no get a reply from me anymore. I don't mind wasting my time on this forum but you are simply boring now.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
> You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the answer either.  And I have told you why it can't be answered.
> 
> We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.
> 
> All we have are theories.  All you have is a theory.  Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've changed the question.
> 
> It is this: why, since Darwin's Theory is flawed, proven wrong, not documented in the evidence, why is it imposed in schools as if a fact?
> 
> 
> And.....I do know the answer.
> And I believe you're smart enough to know the answer, as well.
> 
> Just not brave enough to state it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.
> 
> By definition a theory is not fact.
> 
> And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.
> 
> Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.
> 
> So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are mis-remembering your instruction.
> 
> In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”
> 
> 
> The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So show me in any widely used public school text where it definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a fact.
> 
> If it is indeed taught as fact it should be easy for you to provide the requested references.
Click to expand...



Easy peasy, lemon squeezy


“By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.

*The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)




. Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.


".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
Haeckel s Embryos


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
> You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the answer either.  And I have told you why it can't be answered.
> 
> We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.
> 
> All we have are theories.  All you have is a theory.  Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've changed the question.
> 
> It is this: why, since Darwin's Theory is flawed, proven wrong, not documented in the evidence, why is it imposed in schools as if a fact?
> 
> 
> And.....I do know the answer.
> And I believe you're smart enough to know the answer, as well.
> 
> Just not brave enough to state it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.
> 
> By definition a theory is not fact.
> 
> And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.
> 
> Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.
> 
> So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are mis-remembering your instruction.
> 
> In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”
> 
> 
> The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.
Click to expand...

Lemme guess,.. because they exposed to the court that the label was nonsense?


----------



## PoliticalChic

forkup said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.
> 
> Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
> 
> "and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what?  This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals
> 
> *So explain to me please how you don't lie?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> 
> 
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> 
> "In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
> "He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that *clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits* in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
> ... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…*only additional evidence of the fixity of species.* '"
> Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by you in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”― Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, the American Museum of Natural History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope still no mulligan, you can quote the pope for all I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> 
> In his book “The Intelligent Universe” (1983) Hoyle wrote: “Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?”
> 
> According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros). That is about the same chance as throwing 50,000 sixes in a row with a die. Or as Hoyle describes it: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein… I am at a loss to understand biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious.” (“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.)
> 
> 
> 
> It appears his statement is contrary to your claim of "no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> 
> 
> Did you want to retract that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO MULLIGAN, you want to play further first you will have to address the fossil record. Not some quote from someone you found online who said something in 1983 but actually address it. I gave several transitional forms between land mammals and whales and reptiles and mammals, anything that's not that will no get a reply from me anymore. I don't mind wasting my time on this forum but you are simply boring now.
Click to expand...



"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868



. "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruit flies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruit fly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines", p. 475


But you claimed these quotes showed no problem with Darwinism........


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
> You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the answer either.  And I have told you why it can't be answered.
> 
> We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.
> 
> All we have are theories.  All you have is a theory.  Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've changed the question.
> 
> It is this: why, since Darwin's Theory is flawed, proven wrong, not documented in the evidence, why is it imposed in schools as if a fact?
> 
> 
> And.....I do know the answer.
> And I believe you're smart enough to know the answer, as well.
> 
> Just not brave enough to state it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.
> 
> By definition a theory is not fact.
> 
> And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.
> 
> Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.
> 
> So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are mis-remembering your instruction.
> 
> In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”
> 
> 
> The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lemme guess,.. because they exposed to the court that the label was nonsense?
Click to expand...



Do you wish to apologize for those lies earlier?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.

And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.

As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
> He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. *Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.
> 
> It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.*
> 
> Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
> Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, but *breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand* the meaning of ‘species.’ *I’ll reveal it next.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blogs.scientificamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We _have_ seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus _Tragopogon_) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (_T. dubius_), the meadow salsify (_T. pratensis_), and the oyster plant (_T. porrifolius_) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad you brought up this particular example.
> 
> There actually _are _some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”
> 
> In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.
> 
> Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic _Galeopsis tetrahit_,” _Hereditas _16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics _33 (2002), 589–639.
> 
> 
> 
> Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
> Douglas J. Futuyma, _Evolution _(Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.
> 
> 
> 
> By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many *mutations* as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher *ploidy* level is that it *increases* the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial *mutation*.Nov 2, 2007
> *The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not understand the condition?
> 
> Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.
> 
> 
> 
> . *Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz*, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,* the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed*.
> Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own
> 
> The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history.  Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> " Because *the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"*most people are under the impression that they are supported by* direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies *This impression is seriously misleading[:* it is false.]*
> Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
> Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
> Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.
> 
> That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.
> 
> As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.
> 
> We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory.  It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.
> 
> 
> The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of _New Scientist_ in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for _Science_ for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science
> 
> a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
> 
> " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Using the fossil record is like using a redacted text book.
> 
> The fossil record is woefully incomplete for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> So using an incomplete record as proof of your position puts you on shaky ground
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The fossil record is woefully incomplete ..."
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> It is used in school and in texts as evidence.
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to claim that Darwin has been proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you why.
> 
> And I'm not claiming anything but why is it so important to you to say that some god was responsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Cambrian Explosion Pose a Challenge to Evolution? - Common Question - BioLogos
> 
> 
> The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of important questions, but it doesn't challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> biologos.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all scientists accept the idea that the Cambrian Explosion represents an unusually rapid evolutionary transition. The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively.5 Many of the early Cambrian animals possessed some type of hard mineralized structures (spines, spicules, plates, etc.). In many cases these, often very tiny, mineralized structures are all that are found as fossils. There were major changes in marine environments and chemistry from the late Precambrian into the Cambrian, and these also may have impacted the rise of mineralized skeletons among previously soft-bodied organisms.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Since I never said anything about God, seems you are back against the ropes.
> 
> 
> “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, _The Myths of Human Evolution_, 1984, pp.45-46.)
> 
> Why do certain political powers claim the fossil record supports Darwin, and that Darwinism is proven?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe not in this thread but it is pretty clear to me you think that life was created by some outside force and did not evolve from a common ancestor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what self-serving things you imagine.....I've asked a very simple question.....and you are afraid to answer it.....which indicates two things:
> You know the answer, and it is poison to the totalitarian imposition of Darwinism in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the answer either.  And I have told you why it can't be answered.
> 
> We do not have a complete enough record to definitely state exactly what paths the progression of life took on this planet.
> 
> All we have are theories.  All you have is a theory.  Offering points of contention to Darwinism is all well and good but why don't you actually state the position you are trying to support and then post the proof you think you have?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've changed the question.
> 
> It is this: why, since Darwin's Theory is flawed, proven wrong, not documented in the evidence, why is it imposed in schools as if a fact?
> 
> 
> And.....I do know the answer.
> And I believe you're smart enough to know the answer, as well.
> 
> Just not brave enough to state it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called the THEORY of evolution. I was taught that it was a THEORY in high school.
> 
> By definition a theory is not fact.
> 
> And once again that we do not have a complete record of either fossils or actual observations is the reason it is called Darwin's THEORY of evolution.
> 
> Just like the Big Bang is a THEORY.
> 
> So why don't you post some widely used school text books that definitively state evolution is a fact?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are mis-remembering your instruction.
> 
> In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education voted to place labels inside biology textbooks stating (in part): “This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants, animals, and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact.”
> 
> 
> The ACLU took it to court and had the label removed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So show me in any widely used public school text where it definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a fact.
> 
> If it is indeed taught as fact it should be easy for you to provide the requested references.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Easy peasy, lemon squeezy
> 
> 
> “By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time.” Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine, Prentice Hall Biology (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, 2002), 382.
> 
> *The actual fossil record shows the opposite* of Darwin’s beliefs: " A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail*; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."*
> Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Haeckel’s embryo diagram.They were faked to prove Darwin's common ancestor theory.
> 
> 
> ".... Haeckel's drawings of embryonic similarities were not correct. British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of _Anatomy & Embryology_ showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours!"
> Haeckel s Embryos
> View attachment 357223
Click to expand...


But one can see how species of animals have changed over time.  You have even been given a verified example of speciation in plants and what biologists are describing as the beginnings of speciation in birds.

This can be observed at least some animals via the fossil record but once again we do not have a complete fossil record of every species of plant or animal that has ever exited.  Once again this is one of the main reasons Evolution is still considered a theory.

I do not see where in that excerpt that it states the Theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact.  All it states is that there is evidence that an animal species can change over time.  And you do not dispute that do you?

And is that embryo study from the nineteenth century taught in public schools today as fact and proof of the Theory of evolution?

So if you are going to make a claim that evolution is taught as a scientifically proven fact please provide evidence where in any widely used public text that it clearly states Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientifically proven fact.

Don't give me inferences or some crap from the 19th century.


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.



I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.

When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?

I bet not.

In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> Militant Secularism will succeed.


Thanks for your support


----------



## Grumblenuts

Blues Man said:


> Don't give me inferences or some crap


Good general response to this phony topic.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Why be for "Militant Secularism"? 


> Barr grossly misrepresented the American Founders’ views on the importance of religion, while giving lip service to the separation between state and church. He bizarrely claimed:
> 
> _“Experience teaches that, to be strong enough to control willful human beings, moral values must be based on authority independent of man’s will. In other words, they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being. Men are far likelier to obey rules that come from God than to abide by the abstract outcome of an ad hoc utilitarian calculus.”_
> 
> Barr made it clear he does not think that laws should be based on trying to make the world a better place. Instead, he thinks that laws should seek to “control” humans by convincing them that if they do not obey the rules, they are displeasing a “Supreme Being.” There is a word for this approach to lawmaking: theocracy. In Barr’s case, he is a proponent of the Christian Nationalism version of theocracy.


Poorly edumacated? Misinformed? Ya think?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
Click to expand...



Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?

I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.


I’ve noticed that the hyper-religious tend to get frantic and retreat to rather bizarre conspiracy theories when their extremist beliefs are challenged.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.


No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
Click to expand...




Define "fact."


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forkup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.
> 
> 2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.
> 
> 3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.
> 
> 4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.
> 
> 5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.
> 
> 6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."
> 
> And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.
> 
> 
> Here's your last chance to show you are educable:
> 
> 
> After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is *microevolution. *Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!
> 
> No it isn’t. It’s known as *microevolution*…and has never led to the creation of a new species.
> 
> 
> 
> So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing *between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism.* “ Futuyma, _Evolution_, p. 401.
> 
> 
> *“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species*, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal _Developmental Biology_: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining
> 
> microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian*. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in _Nature_: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (*microevolution*) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great description of Darwin’s theory: *survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.
> 
> I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof?
> There isn't any.
> Many, many real scientists have stated so.
> 
> In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
> Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134
> 
> 
> In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium _Escherichia coli _down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained _E. coli_.
> Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88
> 
> 
> 
> I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.
> 
> But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> * No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
> 
> This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
> 
> 
> .....is not how a species is defined.
> 
> This is:
> 
> Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on *explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”*
> His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
> 
> Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that *the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”*
> Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
> 
> First and foremost is a *definition of ‘species.*’ In their 2004 book _Speciation_, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s *“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
> 
> If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.*
> 
> Why this definition?
> Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to *recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”*
> Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
> 
> 
> The dictionary agrees:
> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of species | Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> Species definition, a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. See more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
> They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
> 
> 
> 
> No new species has ever been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
> 
> I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
> 
> You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
> 
> They have no motive to lie.
> 
> Darwinists do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with* the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. *“The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, _is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that *no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”*_
> *Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.
> 
> 
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). _Morphogenesis and evolution_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). _Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). _The common but less frequent loon and other essays_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). _HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship_. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). _Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes_. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). _Fossils: A Very Short Introduction_. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). _Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). _The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
> Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). _The Young Charles Darwin_. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
> Thomson, Keith (2012). _Jefferson's Shadow_. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
> Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
> View attachment 356542
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you've missed the point.
> 
> The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
> 
> I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
> 
> My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
> 
> Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
> You should ask your self why.
> 
> 
> 
> "It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so _many _of the 600+ comments to be _so_ heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.
> 
> Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
> 
> Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)_Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth_Croom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
> 
> 
> "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
> http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
> 
> 
> "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: *the fossils go missing in all the important places.* When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, _The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong_(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
> 
> 
> 
> It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
> 
> Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First quote.  Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.
> 
> Second quote.
> Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in *evolutionary* neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
> 
> Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
> 
> As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
> 
> By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is the quote correct?
> 
> Of course it is.
> 
> We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
> 
> It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
> 
> 
> 
> *“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6*
> 
> . *To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer*.”
> Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
> 
> “*The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained*.”
> 
> 
> 
> “Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
> Philip Zaleski
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science.  Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
> 
> As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.
> 
> Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
> 
> "and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> 
> 
> But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
> 
> . ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," _Nature_, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
> 
> "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,_Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals_ (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, _The Great Evolution Mystery, _( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guess what?  This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals
> 
> *So explain to me please how you don't lie?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> 
> 
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> 
> "In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
> "He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that *clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits* in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
> ... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…*only additional evidence of the fixity of species.* '"
> Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by you in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”― Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, the American Museum of Natural History
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope still no mulligan, you can quote the pope for all I care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> 
> In his book “The Intelligent Universe” (1983) Hoyle wrote: “Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?”
> 
> According to his calculations, the likelihood of this happening is only one in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 followed by 40 000 zeros). That is about the same chance as throwing 50,000 sixes in a row with a die. Or as Hoyle describes it: “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein… I am at a loss to understand biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious.” (“Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.)
> 
> 
> 
> It appears his statement is contrary to your claim of "no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> 
> 
> Did you want to retract that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO MULLIGAN, you want to play further first you will have to address the fossil record. Not some quote from someone you found online who said something in 1983 but actually address it. I gave several transitional forms between land mammals and whales and reptiles and mammals, anything that's not that will no get a reply from me anymore. I don't mind wasting my time on this forum but you are simply boring now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
> https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/real-science-not-darwin.832733/page-12#post-24984868
> 
> 
> 
> . "Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruit flies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruit fly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species." Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines", p. 475
> 
> 
> But you claimed these quotes showed no problem with Darwinism........
Click to expand...

“Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine”

1. Not exactly authoritative in a thread dealing with biological evolution.

2. Is Kevin Kelley an authority on dowsing like the charlatan Francis Hitching you “quoted”?


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "fact."
Click to expand...

fact

/fakt/

_noun_

a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Don't take my word it is a FACT go did a hole anywhere you find fossils and you'll find species in new layers you NEVER find in older layers.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
Click to expand...

*Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*
by Laurence Moran
Copyright © 1993-2002
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]








hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a _fact_. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact _mechanism_of evolution; there are several _theories_ of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:



> In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse 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--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 don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
> Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. 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 falsely 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 consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
> Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of 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--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.





> - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
Click to expand...


Define “duh.”


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fact
> 
> /fakt/
> 
> _noun_
> 
> a thing that is known or proved to be true.
> 
> Don't take my word it is a FACT go did a hole anywhere you find fossils and you'll find species in new layers you NEVER find in older layers.
Click to expand...



Darwinism is not 'proven,' so it's not a 'fact.'


Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fact
> 
> /fakt/
> 
> _noun_
> 
> a thing that is known or proved to be true.
> 
> Don't take my word it is a FACT go did a hole anywhere you find fossils and you'll find species in new layers you NEVER find in older layers.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is not 'proven,' so it's not a 'fact.'
> 
> 
> Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?
Click to expand...


1. Gee, whiz.

2. Decisions, decisions.

3. We are to accept the factual science data supporting biological evolution or the screeching rants of a religious extremist?

4. What to do, what to do.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fact
> 
> /fakt/
> 
> _noun_
> 
> a thing that is known or proved to be true.
> 
> Don't take my word it is a FACT go did a hole anywhere you find fossils and you'll find species in new layers you NEVER find in older layers.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is not 'proven,' so it's not a 'fact.'
> 
> 
> Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?
Click to expand...

What is the difference between evolution, the appearance of new species, and 'Darwinism'?


----------



## PoliticalChic

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fact
> 
> /fakt/
> 
> _noun_
> 
> a thing that is known or proved to be true.
> 
> Don't take my word it is a FACT go did a hole anywhere you find fossils and you'll find species in new layers you NEVER find in older layers.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is not 'proven,' so it's not a 'fact.'
> 
> 
> Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the difference between evolution, the appearance of new species, and 'Darwinism'?
Click to expand...




Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fact
> 
> /fakt/
> 
> _noun_
> 
> a thing that is known or proved to be true.
> 
> Don't take my word it is a FACT go did a hole anywhere you find fossils and you'll find species in new layers you NEVER find in older layers.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is not 'proven,' so it's not a 'fact.'
> 
> 
> Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the difference between evolution, the appearance of new species, and 'Darwinism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?
Click to expand...

Celebrate your ignorance.


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> Darwinism is not 'proven,' so it's not a 'fact.'
> 
> 
> Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?


"Don't give me inferences or some crap" - Blues Man


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is not 'proven,' so it's not a 'fact.'
> 
> 
> Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't give me inferences or some crap" - Blues Man
Click to expand...






"I sometimes feel that we are training a generation of students who do not know that there is another way.....Our attitude seems to be that if you can deceive, why tell the truth.?"
Harvard ethicist, Herbert Kelman, "Human Use of Human Subjects: The Problem of Deception in Social Psychological Experiments."


Speaking about you?


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## Grumblenuts

> *Fact:* In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Grumblenuts said:


> *Fact:* In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Click to expand...



You can't give up lying?

Seems to be a problem for those poorly brought up.


----------



## alang1216

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fact
> 
> /fakt/
> 
> _noun_
> 
> a thing that is known or proved to be true.
> 
> Don't take my word it is a FACT go did a hole anywhere you find fossils and you'll find species in new layers you NEVER find in older layers.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Darwinism is not 'proven,' so it's not a 'fact.'
> 
> 
> Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the difference between evolution, the appearance of new species, and 'Darwinism'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?
Click to expand...

What is 'it'?  Is it evolution, 'Darwinism', or something else.  I'm beginning to think you don't know the answer to that simple question.


----------



## Grumblenuts

PoliticalChic said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fact:* In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't give up lying?
> 
> Seems to be a problem for those poorly brought up.
Click to expand...


----------



## Grumblenuts

Real Science... Not Just "inferences or some crap"


----------



## Grumblenuts

Speaking of "inferences or some crap": 


PoliticalChic said:


> Darwinism is not 'proven,' so it's not a 'fact.'
> 
> 
> Why is it taught in schools as though it is proven?



Truth:


> You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.
> 
> Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.


Again, "when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility." 

Something one learns attending them damned gubmint skoolz.


----------



## esalla

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
Click to expand...

Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
Click to expand...

All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!


----------



## alang1216

esalla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
Click to expand...

Maybe Noah could explain.


----------



## alang1216

Grumblenuts said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
Click to expand...

If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.

They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
Click to expand...

Just like human designers reuse workable body plans


----------



## Blues Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
Click to expand...

You need to learn to read

I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.

That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????


----------



## alang1216

esalla said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
Click to expand...

Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
Click to expand...

Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blues Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...



You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.

Both are lies.


----------



## esalla

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
Click to expand...

Kid if you do this every day for 16 hours a day for the next 50 years you will not prove or disprove anything

Just sayin


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
Click to expand...




PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
Click to expand...


And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.

The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.

So are you denying these things too?

So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?

Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact



The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.


----------



## alang1216

esalla said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
Click to expand...

Wrong analogy.  Molecules spontaneously assemble and break apart.  If there were some fundamental law, like maybe only the fittest survive, you may yourself some evolution.


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analogy.  Molecules spontaneously assemble and break apart.  If there were some fundamental law, like maybe only the fittest survive, you may yourself some evolution.
Click to expand...

Molecules do not have dna, also molecules do not do anything spontaneously they break or join as their charges and weights determine


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
Click to expand...

Such silly melodrama. 

The problem you have with the science of biological evolution is that your only exposure has been through your fundamentalist ministries. Fundamentalist hacks have an agenda to press which is why they react as they do to knowledge and learning. That is why your cutting and pasting consists of ''quotes'' from fundie ministries. I honestly don't know why you would cut and paste the nonsense you dump into these threads and expect to be taken seriously.

Regarding your ignorant and uninformed claims about Darwin and _Origin of Species_ actually theorized, neither the pattern of the fossil record or the existence of intermediate fossil forms was considered controversial amongst the scientists of the time. Darwin came up with an alternative explanation for these facts that did not rely on the supernatural. So the question is not what do intermediate forms in the fossil record (or the pattern of the fossil record) "prove", but rather how do we explain the existence of intermediate forms in the fossil record (and the pattern of fossil record)?

Biological evolution is the current best scientific explanation for this evidence; as well as that from many other biological fields. What modern anti-evolutionists tend to do is to simply deny that the evidence even exists rather than attempt to _scientifically_ explain it. But then they are usually doing apologetics for their sectarian beliefs, not science.

Origin of Species put forth the theory of adaptation by species to an environment. And yes, that is documented fact.


----------



## alang1216

esalla said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analogy.  Molecules spontaneously assemble and break apart.  If there were some fundamental law, like maybe only the fittest survive, you may yourself some evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Molecules do not have dna, also molecules do not do anything spontaneously they break or join as their charges and weights determine
Click to expand...

Molecules do not have dna, so?  A molecule does not do anything spontaneously they break or join as their charges and weights determine.  Many molecules however behave more randomly.  If you heat up water, not all the molecules will turn from liquid to vapor at the same time.


----------



## esalla

alang1216 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analogy.  Molecules spontaneously assemble and break apart.  If there were some fundamental law, like maybe only the fittest survive, you may yourself some evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Molecules do not have dna, also molecules do not do anything spontaneously they break or join as their charges and weights determine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Molecules do not have dna, so?  A molecule does not do anything spontaneously they break or join as their charges and weights determine.  Many molecules however behave more randomly.  If you heat up water, not all the molecules will turn from liquid to vapor at the same time.
Click to expand...

State changes do not involve code


----------



## Grumblenuts

RNA has "code." When non-repetitive basic nucleotide molecules (adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine, and uracil) combine, do they have a choice about being "Code" or "Not Code"? 

Which parts of the processes described here require supernatural planning or intervention? For example, was the following part of the original plan or is the creator still working on it through us?


> In 2014 the same team from the Scripps Research Institute reported that they synthesized a stretch of circular DNA known as a plasmid containing natural T-A and C-G base pairs along with the best-performing UBP Romesberg's laboratory had designed and inserted it into cells of the common bacterium E. coli that successfully replicated the unnatural base pairs through multiple generations.[9] The transfection did not hamper the growth of the E. coli cells and showed no sign of losing its unnatural base pairs to its natural DNA repair mechanisms. This is the first known example of a living organism passing along an expanded genetic code to subsequent generations.[20][21] Romesberg said he and his colleagues created 300 variants to refine the design of nucleotides that would be stable enough and would be replicated as easily as the natural ones when the cells divide.


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
Click to expand...

Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
Click to expand...


No cars rust over time.

There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.

And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.









						DNA could have existed long before life itself
					

The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds




					www.newscientist.com
				




Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.


After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.









						Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
					

Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...




					phys.org


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves. Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter


What if "dark matter" created "the code"? Could "dark matter" not be "god"?


----------



## alang1216

esalla said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analogy.  Molecules spontaneously assemble and break apart.  If there were some fundamental law, like maybe only the fittest survive, you may yourself some evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Molecules do not have dna, also molecules do not do anything spontaneously they break or join as their charges and weights determine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Molecules do not have dna, so?  A molecule does not do anything spontaneously they break or join as their charges and weights determine.  Many molecules however behave more randomly.  If you heat up water, not all the molecules will turn from liquid to vapor at the same time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> State changes do not involve code
Click to expand...

Everything is code.


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
Click to expand...

Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution


When?
"god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves"
So were these "codes" the original "design" or was creating primordial soup the real genius?


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> 
> 
> When?
> "god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves"
> So were these "codes" the original "design" or was creating primordial soup the real genius?
Click to expand...

When we take life to Mars guess what............................

God is proved and it's us as we were made in his image

Yawn


----------



## Grumblenuts

Why would we ever go to Mars?


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
Click to expand...


There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
Click to expand...

It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware


----------



## Grumblenuts

Perhaps they'll then sit around woefully telling each other they were made in Our image after deciding Our fate in the first microsecond..


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
Click to expand...


You read too much Sci fi.


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
Click to expand...

That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
Click to expand...


And that makes it an inevitability>?


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
Click to expand...

God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
Click to expand...


Sorry try again.

The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.

So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
Click to expand...

Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves

Really


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really
Click to expand...




So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really


Settle? Farm? People can't breathe 96% carbon dioxide, 0% oxygen. Not to mention it's a bit cold (-81 degrees F : frozen solid), dinky, dark, and dreary.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????


The OP’s shrill tirades have exceeded the frequency of human hearing. All the dogs in my neighborhood are barking.


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?
Click to expand...

No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth.  So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god. 

So god is also here now

Got that mulder


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth.  So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.
Click to expand...


So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything

But there is no proof such a being exists


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth.  So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything
> 
> But there is no proof such a being exists
Click to expand...

Actually there is proof that we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet


----------



## Grumblenuts

Actually, continuing to simply pound the "Reply" button, thereby creating pointlessly monstrous threads within a thread, demonstrates that us "leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet" could never happen. We're far too stupid to accomplish anything half so stupid.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Now contrast abundant single cell life emerging from warm primordial soup given millions of years..

Easy peasy lemon squeezy!


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> Actually, continuing to simply pound the "Reply" button, thereby creating pointlessly monstrous threads within a thread, demonstrates that us "leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet" could never happen. We're far too stupid to accomplish anything half so stupid.


So there is no manned mars missions being planned

Lol you stay there with your meds


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, continuing to simply pound the "Reply" button, thereby creating pointlessly monstrous threads within a thread, demonstrates that us "leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet" could never happen. We're far too stupid to accomplish anything half so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> So there is no manned mars missions being planned
> 
> Lol you stay there with your meds
Click to expand...

You keep shifting your goal posts:

"the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet"
"the people who settle and begin farming on mars"
"when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet"
"we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet"
  Now all it takes is apparently:

"manned mars missions being planned"
Lol, funny farmer


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, continuing to simply pound the "Reply" button, thereby creating pointlessly monstrous threads within a thread, demonstrates that us "leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet" could never happen. We're far too stupid to accomplish anything half so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> So there is no manned mars missions being planned
> 
> Lol you stay there with your meds
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep shifting your goal posts:
> 
> "the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet"
> "the people who settle and begin farming on mars"
> "when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet"
> "we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet"
> Now all it takes is apparently:
> 
> "manned mars missions being planned"
> Lol, funny farmer
Click to expand...

Glad you agree

Ps this is not football


----------



## Grumblenuts

Why a "dead planet"? Why not try growing your turnips on the Moon first?


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> this is not football


Moving the goalposts:


> *Example #2:* Perhaps the most classic example of this fallacy is the argument for the existence of God.  Due to the understanding of nature through science, many of the arguments that used to be used for God (or gods) were abandoned, only to be replaced with new ones, usually involving questions to which science has not definitively answered yet.  The move from creationism to intelligent design is a prime example.  Currently the origin of life is a popular argument for God (although a classic argument from ignorance), and an area where we very well may have a scientific answer in the next decade, at which time, the “origin of life” argument will fade away and be replaced by another, thus moving the figurative goalposts farther back as our understanding of the natural world increases.


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is not football
> 
> 
> 
> Moving the goalposts:
> 
> 
> 
> *Example #2:* Perhaps the most classic example of this fallacy is the argument for the existence of God.  Due to the understanding of nature through science, many of the arguments that used to be used for God (or gods) were abandoned, only to be replaced with new ones, usually involving questions to which science has not definitively answered yet.  The move from creationism to intelligent design is a prime example.  Currently the origin of life is a popular argument for God (although a classic argument from ignorance), and an area where we very well may have a scientific answer in the next decade, at which time, the “origin of life” argument will fade away and be replaced by another, thus moving the figurative goalposts farther back as our understanding of the natural world increases.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There are no goals kid, but you keep deluding yourself


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> Why a "dead planet"? Why not try growing your turnips on the Moon first?


The moon is not a planet, mars is a planet with oxygen and water

Next


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> There are no goals kid, but you keep deluding yourself


Whatever you say, funny farmer.


esalla said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why a "dead planet"? Why not try growing your turnips on the Moon first?
> 
> 
> 
> The moon is not a planet, mars is a planet with oxygen and water
> 
> Next
Click to expand...

What does being a planet have to do with the price of tea in China?


> The atmosphere of Mars consists of about 96% carbon dioxide, 1.93% argon and 1.89% nitrogen along with traces of oxygen and water.





> Oxygen on the Moon
> Based on lunar rock samples returned to Earth during the Apollo missions, scientists know that the moon's soil, or regolith, contains about 40 to 45 percent oxygen by weight. This makes oxygen the most abundant element on the moon's surface. But harvesting it is difficult.





> *Lunar water* is water that is present on the Moon. Liquid water cannot persist at the Moon's surface, and water vapor is decomposed by sunlight, with hydrogen quickly lost to outer space. However, scientists have conjectured since the 1960s that water ice could survive in cold, permanently shadowed craters at the Moon's poles. Water molecules are also detected in the thin layer of gases above the lunar surface.


Next


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no goals kid, but you keep deluding yourself
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you say, funny farmer.
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why a "dead planet"? Why not try growing your turnips on the Moon first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moon is not a planet, mars is a planet with oxygen and water
> 
> Next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does being a planet have to do with the price of tea in China?
> 
> 
> 
> The atmosphere of Mars consists of about 96% carbon dioxide, 1.93% argon and 1.89% nitrogen along with traces of oxygen and water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oxygen on the Moon
> Based on lunar rock samples returned to Earth during the Apollo missions, scientists know that the moon's soil, or regolith, contains about 40 to 45 percent oxygen by weight. This makes oxygen the most abundant element on the moon's surface. But harvesting it is difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Lunar water* is water that is present on the Moon. Liquid water cannot persist at the Moon's surface, and water vapor is decomposed by sunlight, with hydrogen quickly lost to outer space. However, scientists have conjectured since the 1960s that water ice could survive in cold, permanently shadowed craters at the Moon's poles. Water molecules are also detected in the thin layer of gases above the lunar surface.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Next
Click to expand...

The moon has no atmosphere silly


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> The moon has no atmosphere silly


Oh, is that a problem? The atmosphere on Mars is so much more inviting?


> AtmosphereSurface pressure0.636 (0.4–0.87) kPa
> 0.00628 atm


Nothing comparable to Earth, sparky.. and cold!


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moon has no atmosphere silly
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that a problem? The atmosphere on Mars is so much more inviting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AtmosphereSurface pressure0.636 (0.4–0.87) kPa
> 0.00628 atm
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing comparable to Earth, sparky.. and cold!
Click to expand...

True there will be mars greenhouses


----------



## Grumblenuts

And we could build greenhouses on the Moon.. much more easily.
We've been to the Moon. What's so different about going to Mars (other than it being a planet instead of a moon obviously)? How does "god" relate to the one and not the other?


> astronauts have successfully grown plants and vegetables aboard the International Space Station


Why doesn't the ISS count?


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth.  So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything
> 
> But there is no proof such a being exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there is proof that we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet
Click to expand...

No there is speculation and that's about it.

And even if we do we won't be creating new life on Mars but we will try to  alter conditions so we can grow what already grows on earth


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> The moon has no atmosphere silly
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that a problem? The atmosphere on Mars is so much more inviting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AtmosphereSurface pressure0.636 (0.4–0.87) kPa
> 0.00628 atm
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing comparable to Earth, sparky.. and cold!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True there will be mars greenhouses
Click to expand...

To do that we would need to supply atmospheric conditions  for earth plants and that's not as easy as you seem to think it is.


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth.  So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything
> 
> But there is no proof such a being exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there is proof that we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there is speculation and that's about it.
> 
> And even if we do we won't be creating new life on Mars but we will try to  alter conditions so we can grow what already grows on earth
Click to expand...

Genetic engineering would be faster


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth.  So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything
> 
> But there is no proof such a being exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there is proof that we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there is speculation and that's about it.
> 
> And even if we do we won't be creating new life on Mars but we will try to  alter conditions so we can grow what already grows on earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetic engineering would be faster
Click to expand...


Not really since we would have to engineer organisms that could thrive in virtually zero atmosphere with zero water and have the ability to withstand the wild temperature swings on Mars as well as the solar radiation that is not deflected by an inherent planetary magnetic field as we have here on earth.

Tell me why do you think it would be so easy to do all that?

We do not have the will as a country a planet or collectively as human beings to undertake such a venture.


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth.  So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything
> 
> But there is no proof such a being exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there is proof that we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there is speculation and that's about it.
> 
> And even if we do we won't be creating new life on Mars but we will try to  alter conditions so we can grow what already grows on earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetic engineering would be faster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really since we would have to engineer organisms that could thrive in virtually zero atmosphere with zero water and have the ability to withstand the wild temperature swings on Mars as well as the solar radiation that is not deflected by an inherent planetary magnetic field as we have here on earth.
> 
> Tell me why do you think it would be so easy to do all that?
> 
> We do not have the will as a country a planet or collectively as human beings to undertake such a venture.
Click to expand...

Again mars has an atmosphere and I see greenhouses with partial Martian conditions being used to develop new strains of life

But then I see computer errors before they happen too

Classified so do not bother


----------



## Grumblenuts

Again,..

"What's so different about going to Mars (other than it being a planet instead of a moon obviously)? How does "god" relate to the one and not the other?"

??? A simple "I don't know" at this point would serve very nicely..


----------



## Grumblenuts

> In August 2019, astronomers reported that newly discovered long-term pattern of absorbance and albedo changes in the atmosphere of the planet Venus are caused by “unknown absorbers”, which may be chemicals or even large colonies of microorganisms high up in the atmosphere of Venus, it remains to be seen.


Uh oh, looks like your god may have moved on to Venus and given up on us..


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> Again,..
> 
> "What's so different about going to Mars (other than it being a planet instead of a moon obviously)? How does "god" relate to the one and not the other?"
> 
> ??? A simple "I don't know" at this point would serve very nicely..


Some moons may well be habitable however our moon has no atmosphere at all which means the surface of the moon is essentially outer space. Again Mars has an atmosphere and possible water at least at the poles.


----------



## Grumblenuts

*> "How does "god" relate to the one and not the other?" <
......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> *> "How does "god" relate to the one and not the other?" <
> ......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*


Jesus was the Son of God which essentially makes him human since a human gave birth to Jesus

Most miss this by saying god waved his wand

Why are you so stressed?


----------



## Grumblenuts

How about answering the question?


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> How about answering the question?


What question?


----------



## Grumblenuts

The one I've asked you repeatedly now. Again, a nice, honest "I have no fucking clue!" would be just ducky..


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> The one I've asked you repeatedly now. Again, a nice, honest "I have no fucking clue!" would be just ducky..


Are you one of those delusional schizzos that believes that when they ask a question that the World must serve the great teacher.

Kid you are a high school dropout that took a shrink equivalency course that your will be paying thru the nose for for 20 years.

Bill Gates is a dropout


----------



## Grumblenuts

No fucking clue it is then. Okay. Thanks!


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> No fucking clue it is then. Okay. Thanks!


Frustrated with your college loans huh?

20 more years then you can buy a trailer

Yawn


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> When we take life to Mars guess what............................
> 
> God is proved


Ad hominem till the cows come home. Still waiting for a coherent, logical basis, son..


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we take life to Mars guess what............................
> 
> God is proved
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem till the cows come home. Still waiting for a coherent, logical basis, son..
Click to expand...

You keep waiting, i'll be building something


----------



## Grumblenuts

Point is: if you were simply going to revert to stuff like - '_goddidit,' 'because the Bible tells me so,' and 'ya just gotta have FAITH!' - _you could have just said that in the first place and saved us all the trouble of interrogating you like a scientific method respecting, rational human being.


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> Point is: if you were simply going to revert to stuff like - '_goddidit,' 'because the Bible tells me so,' and 'ya just gotta have FAITH!' - _you could have just said that in the first place and saved us all the trouble of interrogating you like a scientific method respecting, rational human being.


I do not believe in God because anyone or the bible told me too.  I see God as a scientific need that allows for the creation of DNA.  You believe in Darwin's mythical magical pond of goo goo


----------



## Grumblenuts

And how about after we succeed in creating DNA (from already proven primordial soup generated, readily available nucleotides) in a laboratory, most likely within the next ten years,.. right here on Earth? We've already made RNA that way.. no "God" required.


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> And how about after we succeed in creating DNA (from already proven primordial soup generated, readily available nucleotides) in a laboratory, most likely within the next ten years,.. right here on Earth? We've already made RNA that way.. no "God" required.


No one knows how or when life was created, perhaps god had life with him on his ship when he came to the Earth or perhaps god is not a noun but a verb meaning how life spreads thru the universe.  So you are the fool demanding that they know how life was created, I merely point out that soup does not write advanced code.

Except in your trailer where the goo you take a bath in, writes better than you do

CIAO


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how about after we succeed in creating DNA (from already proven primordial soup generated, readily available nucleotides) in a laboratory, most likely within the next ten years,.. right here on Earth? We've already made RNA that way.. no "God" required.
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows how or when life was created, perhaps god had life with him on his ship when he came to the Earth or perhaps god is not a noun but a verb meaning how life spreads thru the universe.  So you are the fool demanding that they know how life was created, I merely point out that soup does not write advanced code.
> 
> Except in your trailer where the goo you take a bath in, writes better than you do
> 
> CIAO
Click to expand...

Okay, so


Grumblenuts said:


> No fucking clue it is then.


Thanks!


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how about after we succeed in creating DNA (from already proven primordial soup generated, readily available nucleotides) in a laboratory, most likely within the next ten years,.. right here on Earth? We've already made RNA that way.. no "God" required.
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows how or when life was created, perhaps god had life with him on his ship when he came to the Earth or perhaps god is not a noun but a verb meaning how life spreads thru the universe.  So you are the fool demanding that they know how life was created, I merely point out that soup does not write advanced code.
> 
> Except in your trailer where the goo you take a bath in, writes better than you do
> 
> CIAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> No fucking clue it is then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...

Are you babbling about something particular or just babbling as usual?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Babbling, eh? Lol. First you assert,


esalla said:


> You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate


Many here have pointed out why there's no longer anything for one to consider special about your precious "code." Scientists are creating it in labs today. RNA today, DNA soon. You stick your fingers in your ears and go,


> No one knows _{...}_, perhaps god _{...}_ or perhaps god _{...}_ I merely point out that soup does not write advanced code.


Yes, it does. We do know that. No "god" required. Get over yourself.


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> Babbling, eh? Lol. First you assert,
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> 
> 
> Many here have pointed out why there's no longer anything for one to consider special about your precious "code." Scientist are creating it in labs today. RNA today, DNA soon. You stick your fingers in your ears and go,
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows _{...}_, perhaps god _{...}_ or perhaps god _{...}_ I merely point out that soup does not write advanced code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does. We do know that. No "god" required. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

Sorry kid your babbles have become trite so I have to ignore you, I hope you get the attention that you need


----------



## esalla

Grumblenuts said:


> Babbling, eh? Lol. First you assert,
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> 
> 
> Many here have pointed out why there's no longer anything for one to consider special about your precious "code." Scientists are creating it in labs today. RNA today, DNA soon. You stick your fingers in your ears and go,
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows _{...}_, perhaps god _{...}_ or perhaps god _{...}_ I merely point out that soup does not write advanced code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does. We do know that. No "god" required. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

Guy nuts I cant see what u post

If I need a laugh I will undo this


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth.  So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything
> 
> But there is no proof such a being exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there is proof that we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there is speculation and that's about it.
> 
> And even if we do we won't be creating new life on Mars but we will try to  alter conditions so we can grow what already grows on earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetic engineering would be faster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really since we would have to engineer organisms that could thrive in virtually zero atmosphere with zero water and have the ability to withstand the wild temperature swings on Mars as well as the solar radiation that is not deflected by an inherent planetary magnetic field as we have here on earth.
> 
> Tell me why do you think it would be so easy to do all that?
> 
> We do not have the will as a country a planet or collectively as human beings to undertake such a venture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again mars has an atmosphere and I see greenhouses with partial Martian conditions being used to develop new strains of life
> 
> But then I see computer errors before they happen too
> 
> Classified so do not bother
Click to expand...


Do you know how much atmosphere Mars actually has?  It's less than 1% of what the earth has.  Therefore it is completely negligible.


----------



## esalla

Blues Man said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth.  So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything
> 
> But there is no proof such a being exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there is proof that we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there is speculation and that's about it.
> 
> And even if we do we won't be creating new life on Mars but we will try to  alter conditions so we can grow what already grows on earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetic engineering would be faster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really since we would have to engineer organisms that could thrive in virtually zero atmosphere with zero water and have the ability to withstand the wild temperature swings on Mars as well as the solar radiation that is not deflected by an inherent planetary magnetic field as we have here on earth.
> 
> Tell me why do you think it would be so easy to do all that?
> 
> We do not have the will as a country a planet or collectively as human beings to undertake such a venture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again mars has an atmosphere and I see greenhouses with partial Martian conditions being used to develop new strains of life
> 
> But then I see computer errors before they happen too
> 
> Classified so do not bother
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how much atmosphere Mars actually has?  It's less than 1% of what the earth has.  Therefore it is completely negligible.
Click to expand...

Earth also once had no atmosphere


----------



## Grumblenuts

Before:


esalla said:


> our moon has no atmosphere at all


After:


esalla said:


> Earth also once had no atmosphere


Like having it both ways much?


----------



## Grumblenuts

esalla said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Babbling, eh? Lol. First you assert,
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> 
> 
> Many here have pointed out why there's no longer anything for one to consider special about your precious "code." Scientists are creating it in labs today. RNA today, DNA soon. You stick your fingers in your ears and go,
> 
> 
> 
> No one knows _{...}_, perhaps god _{...}_ or perhaps god _{...}_ I merely point out that soup does not write advanced code.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it does. We do know that. No "god" required. Get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guy nuts I cant see what u post
> 
> If I need a laugh I will undo this
Click to expand...

Talk about babbling


----------



## Blues Man

esalla said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> 
> 
> No true scientist, at that I know of, disputes the FACT that new species have come into being.  The fossil record PROVES this is a fact.
> No theory is perfect but Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we have that explains the world we see and most scientists agree.  If you don't have a better theory, which you don't, it is reasonable to accept Darwin's Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "fact."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yo you never explained why so much of gods creations all died out.  Is god stupid or something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All part of the Grand Plan, doncha know? The shockingly beautiful, so immediately evident, "Intelligent Design"!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If there is an "Intelligent Designer" they are very odd, sometimes they were really lazy and sometimes they made extra work for themselves.
> 
> They continued to reuse existing body plans to perform very different functions.  Think about the fingers of a bat being used to form a wing.  Sometimes they did just the opposite, using very different body plans to form the same function.  Think about how much the porpoise resembles the shark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like human designers reuse workable body plans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dinos were very successful but were replaced by mammals.  What happened to them and where did birds come from?  Does the world really need 3 type of mammal body plans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong question.  You should be asking where did the code that evolves come from as code does not spontaneously generate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow, there is a plot to advance Darwinism, even though many scientists have documented how very wrong the theory is.
> 
> And, on you three.....the indoctrination worked.
> 
> As long as there are weak-minded, easily led folks, Militant Secularism will succeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never once called Evolution a fact.  If you think I have then please find that quote and post it.
> 
> When you can't find that quote, will you have the integrity to admit you just lied about my stance?
> 
> I bet not.
> 
> In the meanwhile you have not provided any proof that any text books used in US public schools state that evolution is a proven scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you ask me to find Darwinist propaganda in textbooks?
> 
> I sure put a cork in your pie hole, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to learn to read
> 
> I asked you for evidence that the public school text books call the Theory of evolution a scientifically proven fact.
> 
> That is after all what you are whining about isn't it??????????????????????????????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn to read: I gave you two examples the texts used to 'prove' Darwin.
> 
> Both are lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in neither example were the words "scientifically proven fact" present.  And the second one was some 19th century crap that you have not proven is still being taught in public schools today.
> 
> The fact is we do see both animal and plant species change over time due to many external factors.  You agreed that speciation can happen in plants and I posted a link to what biologists believe to be the onset of speciation in a bird population.
> 
> So are you denying these things too?
> 
> So please post something from a widely used public school text that definitively states Darwin's Theory of evolution is a *scientifically proven fact*.  That is you argument is it not?
> 
> Maybe you don't realize that saying we can see changes in animal species over time is not the same as saying Darwin's theory has been scientifically proven to be fact
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Bang is also a theory taught in schools and while it is widely accepted it still is not fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cars evolve over time too, god merely created a way so that his designs improve themselves.  Evolution is based upon changing code so without the code there is nothing to evolve thus god becomes a scientific need, just like dark matter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cars rust over time.
> 
> There is no comparison between an inanimate object and a living thing.
> 
> And when you can give me scientific proof that some supreme being exists and that same supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything let me know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA could have existed long before life itself
> 
> 
> The idea that life began with RNA – simpler than DNA – looks less certain now that a DNA-like molecule has been made from basic compounds
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chemists are close to demonstrating that the building blocks of DNA can form spontaneously from chemicals thought to be present on the primordial Earth.
> 
> 
> After decades of trying, in 2009 researchers finally managed to generate RNA using chemicals that probably existed on the early Earth. Matthew Powner, now at University College London, and his colleagues synthesised two of the four nucleotides that make up RNA. Their achievement suggested that RNA may have formed spontaneously – powerful support for the idea that life began in an “RNA world”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did life emerge in the 'primordial soup' via DNA or RNA? Maybe both
> 
> 
> Scientists have long debated which genetic information carrier—DNA or RNA—started life on Earth, but a new study suggests life could have begun with a bit of both. The research, led by scientists from the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB), in Cambridge, shows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> phys.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life corrodes over time too, which is why god designed reproduction and evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no valid comparison between animate and inanimate objects
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's just a matter of time before computers become true ai or self aware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read too much Sci fi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is what ibm said to Bill Gates when he licenced windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that makes it an inevitability>?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is proved the moment a human walks and builds on a dead planet.  Self aware computers are a minor thing when compared to proving god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry try again.
> 
> The existence of any god is proved when a person can see that god and that sighting is verified by other sources.
> Then it has to be proven that this being actually has supernatural powers of creation.
> 
> So when you can introduce me in person to a being that can prove it has the power of creation and demonstrates that power by creating a universe as I watch we can talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually the people who settle and begin farming on mars will be able to see themselves
> 
> Really
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that a god lives on Mars?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I am saying that I believe as do most of the earths population that God brought life to a new planet called earth.  So it follows that when humans move life to a new previously lifeless planet that humans have performed the god function and will effectively be spreading life as god once did, thus humans become god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So like most people you believe some supreme being snapped his fingers and created everything
> 
> But there is no proof such a being exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually there is proof that we exist and will shortly be leaving the earth to live at a previously dead planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there is speculation and that's about it.
> 
> And even if we do we won't be creating new life on Mars but we will try to  alter conditions so we can grow what already grows on earth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Genetic engineering would be faster
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really since we would have to engineer organisms that could thrive in virtually zero atmosphere with zero water and have the ability to withstand the wild temperature swings on Mars as well as the solar radiation that is not deflected by an inherent planetary magnetic field as we have here on earth.
> 
> Tell me why do you think it would be so easy to do all that?
> 
> We do not have the will as a country a planet or collectively as human beings to undertake such a venture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again mars has an atmosphere and I see greenhouses with partial Martian conditions being used to develop new strains of life
> 
> But then I see computer errors before they happen too
> 
> Classified so do not bother
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know how much atmosphere Mars actually has?  It's less than 1% of what the earth has.  Therefore it is completely negligible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earth also once had no atmosphere
Click to expand...


But unlike Mars the Earth has an active planetary magnetic field produced by the motion molten nickel and iron in the core.  it is this field that deflects the solar winds that would otherwise strip away our atmosphere.

Mars no longer has a planetary magnetic field because its core is now cold which is why its atmosphere is gone.

There is no way we can artificially produce a planetary magnetic field on Mars.  And if we can't do that there is no way we can create an atmosphere on Mars that will last


----------



## Grumblenuts

Blues Man said:


> Do you know how much atmosphere Mars actually has? It's less than 1% of what the earth has. Therefore it is completely negligible.





esalla said:


> Earth also once had no atmosphere





> the Moon had once possessed a relatively thick atmosphere for a period of 70 million years between 3 and 4 billion years ago. This atmosphere, sourced from gases ejected from lunar volcanic eruptions, was twice the thickness of that of present-day Mars. It has been theorized, in fact, that this ancient atmosphere could have supported life, though no evidence of life has been found.[10] The ancient lunar atmosphere was eventually stripped away by solar winds and dissipated into space.


Not to worry, been there, done that,


> The atmosphere on board the ISS is similar to the Earth's.[184] Normal air pressure on the ISS is 101.3 kPa (14.69 psi);[185] the same as at sea level on Earth. An Earth-like atmosphere offers benefits for crew comfort, and is much safer than a pure oxygen atmosphere, because of the increased risk of a fire such as that responsible for the deaths of the Apollo 1 crew.[186] Earth-like atmospheric conditions have been maintained on all Russian and Soviet spacecraft.


No actual need nor call for going to Mars, Venus, or the Moon; whether just to breathe on some outer space object, build greenhouses, nor to view people in a mirror.


> US astronaut Chris Cassidy had gone out of the space station to replace the batteries when he lost his mirror. Cassidy's colleague Bob Behnken had accompanied him when the incident occurred. Chris Cassidy said losing the mirror was "a real bummer".


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????


It's comical when the religious extremists use ''quotes'' from ID'iot creationist charlatans in a science thread.






__





						Encyclopedia of American Loons
					

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.




					americanloons.blogspot.com
				




Our next loon, Michael Behe, is a prime example of what can happen when loonery disguises itself as real science. Behe is one of the most ardent and influential creationist out there; covered in more detail here.

Behe himself claims to accept (for instance) common descent and an old (13+ Billion years) universe. However evidence shows that he is a straightforward creationist. He consistently argues that his purported evidence that evolutionary theory does not work is automatically evidence for ID. The shifting of goalposts is obvious when he tries to argue that his opponents are inconsistent in arguing that ID is unfalisifiable (e.g. Coyne) and empirically refuted (e.g. Doolittle). In refusing to admit that Doolittle’s experiments - which falsified his specific predictions concerning blood clotting - were a falsification of the testable claims he forwarded with respect to irreducible complexity, Behe spectacularly demonstrates that Coyne is right to deem ID unfalsifiable (insofar as its supporters continuously change the goalposts).

Behe is also a religious apologist in general, serving as an “expert witness” for several religion related court cases.

Diagnosis: Strongly under the spell of confirmation bias, dishonest and a crackpot. As perhaps the leading creationist today, Behe is very influential and dangerous.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> It's comical when the religious extremists use ''quotes'' from ID'iot creationist charlatans in a science thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> 
> It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanloons.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our next loon, Michael Behe, is a prime example of what can happen when loonery disguises itself as real science. Behe is one of the most ardent and influential creationist out there; covered in more detail here.
> 
> Behe himself claims to accept (for instance) common descent and an old (13+ Billion years) universe. However evidence shows that he is a straightforward creationist. He consistently argues that his purported evidence that evolutionary theory does not work is automatically evidence for ID. The shifting of goalposts is obvious when he tries to argue that his opponents are inconsistent in arguing that ID is unfalisifiable (e.g. Coyne) and empirically refuted (e.g. Doolittle). In refusing to admit that Doolittle’s experiments - which falsified his specific predictions concerning blood clotting - were a falsification of the testable claims he forwarded with respect to irreducible complexity, Behe spectacularly demonstrates that Coyne is right to deem ID unfalsifiable (insofar as its supporters continuously change the goalposts).
> 
> Behe is also a religious apologist in general, serving as an “expert witness” for several religion related court cases.
> 
> Diagnosis: Strongly under the spell of confirmation bias, dishonest and a crackpot. As perhaps the leading creationist today, Behe is very influential and dangerous.
Click to expand...

Do you feel better now?  What did you just achieve?


----------



## Grumblenuts

You first.


----------



## esalla

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????
> 
> 
> 
> It's comical when the religious extremists use ''quotes'' from ID'iot creationist charlatans in a science thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons
> 
> 
> It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> americanloons.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our next loon, Michael Behe, is a prime example of what can happen when loonery disguises itself as real science. Behe is one of the most ardent and influential creationist out there; covered in more detail here.
> 
> Behe himself claims to accept (for instance) common descent and an old (13+ Billion years) universe. However evidence shows that he is a straightforward creationist. He consistently argues that his purported evidence that evolutionary theory does not work is automatically evidence for ID. The shifting of goalposts is obvious when he tries to argue that his opponents are inconsistent in arguing that ID is unfalisifiable (e.g. Coyne) and empirically refuted (e.g. Doolittle). In refusing to admit that Doolittle’s experiments - which falsified his specific predictions concerning blood clotting - were a falsification of the testable claims he forwarded with respect to irreducible complexity, Behe spectacularly demonstrates that Coyne is right to deem ID unfalsifiable (insofar as its supporters continuously change the goalposts).
> 
> Behe is also a religious apologist in general, serving as an “expert witness” for several religion related court cases.
> 
> Diagnosis: Strongly under the spell of confirmation bias, dishonest and a crackpot. As perhaps the leading creationist today, Behe is very influential and dangerous.
Click to expand...

Behe is a Roman Catholic silly


----------



## Death Angel

fncceo said:


> To whom?


To the followers of the cult of evolution


----------



## Death Angel

The video I recently posted about the inner workings of a CELL proves this could never happen wit the birth and death of a million sons.

Not even the walking proteins, or any other part of a living cell could possibly create itself. Only a fool who HATES God, or the brainwashed zombies of the modern educational system could ever believe any COMPONENT of life could create itself without a CREATOR


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????


Should be moved to the Rubber Room immediately. Does not belong in this section.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Should be moved to the Rubber Room immediately. Does not belong in this section.





So......you're demanding that I visit your abode????


Should I bring a box of cake?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

PoliticalChic said:


> So......you're demanding that I visit your abode????
> 
> 
> Should I bring a box of cake?


You should visit a 6th grade science class and bring your entire collection of shut your idiot mouth and listen and learn.


----------



## fncceo

Death Angel said:


> Only a fool who HATES God, or the brainwashed zombies



Zombies are biologically impossible... at least the Romero variety.


----------



## Hollie

Death Angel said:


> The video I recently posted about the inner workings of a CELL proves this could never happen wit the birth and death of a million sons.
> 
> Not even the walking proteins, or any other part of a living cell could possibly create itself. Only a fool who HATES God, or the brainwashed zombies of the modern educational system could ever believe any COMPONENT of life could create itself without a CREATOR


"The gawds did it'', answers all questions.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You should visit a 6th grade science class and bring your entire collection of shut your idiot mouth and listen and learn.






Always amusing......the same sort of post every time a government school grad is exposed to the truth and has no way to dispute it: they demand censorship.


----------



## Hollie

PoliticalChic said:


> Always amusing......the same sort of post every time a government school grad is exposed to the truth and has no way to dispute it: they demand censorship.


Laughable how hyper-religious loons suggest charlatans at AIG or the Disco'tute represent science. 

I guess the home skoolers are forever developmentally challenged.


----------



## ReinyDays

A sealed vessel of pure methane, given time, will become contaminated with ethane ... simple collisions ... thus the process of evolution begins ... 

We have a hell of a lot of time to work with ... so the logic follows through ...


----------



## Clyde 154

Darwinian evolution is not science its nothing but tax payer funded religious dogma.  Its taught as fact but in reality its an unprovable theory as there is no LAW OF EVOLUTION as taught in our school systems.

As far a census opinion meaning something.......some on this board declare that every important man of science has historically supported human evolution as being a scientific fact......Indeed human evolution (within species) is a fact of nature.  Man was created with the ability to evolve/adapt............if not, mankind would've became extinct when he 1st came into contact with the common cold virus or when he first encountered some drastic climate/weather change.

But there is a distinct difference between "horizontal evolution" which is a fact of science that demonstrates evolution within SPECIES and "vertical evolution" as taught by the Darwinian Quacks as a fact ......evolution of a vertical nature or the teaching that man has evolved from a different species.  They do this, muddy the waters, they present examples of evolution within species and declare.........see, facts, and then go off on a tangent narrative and claim this proves Vertical Evolution, evolution outside of species....by calling MUTATION as a reality that creates new species........but in reality MUTATION is the deformed entity of a completely healthy DNA example....mutation never adds onto a DNA, mutation takes away perfection and leaves deformity behind in its wake.

They will show different states of animalistic type characteristics of supposed different stages of human evolution.....when in reality the fossils found represent.....the remains of isolated pockets of humanity that attempted to survive via incestuous reproduction.  The fossils found are nothing but examples of deformed or mutated HUMANS as the DNA proves.

They attempt to declare, "See the great resemblance between normal DNA and these sub humans?"  Of course the DNA is close........but there is always something missing.....that which is missing is the reason for the deformity.

You will never see a Darwinist promote this possibility because it defeats their basic tenet of life having evolved randomly from NON LIVING MATTER.

There is a huge list of great men of science that dismisses Darwinian teaching as quackery.  There are many of these men of science that actually believe in the God of Creation.   1.  Joseph Lister........the father of antiseptic surgical practice
2.  Louis Pasteur who debunked the atheistic claim of "spontaneous generation of life from non living matter".

3.  Isaac Newton......who believed in gravity, calculus and the Bible.  4. Johann Kepler astronomy.  5. Robert Boyle Chemistry.
6.  Georges Cuvier Paleontology.  7.  Charles Baggage computer science.  ............more great men of science that had a census opinion of accepting creationism over Darwinism?

Charles Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Ambrose Fleming....the list goes on and on........in fact up to 50% of the scientific community is beginning to drastically question Darwinian quackery.

Again.........anyone, SHOW ME THE LAW OF EVOUTION.   If not simply accept your place as being a member of a religious cult as anything can be made into a religion and its nothing short of worshiping to read some of the quackery presented as scientific evidence.

When they go off on this tangent teaching, claiming its SCIENCE.....notice the words ALWAYS used in these supposed Scientific opinions.   They use words such as, "points to", "suggests" "most likely" "could it be", etc.  Real scientific Terms


----------



## ReinyDays

Clyde 154 said:


> Darwinian evolution is not science its nothing but tax payer funded religious dogma.  Its taught as fact but in reality its an unprovable theory as there is no LAW OF EVOLUTION as taught in our school systems.
> 
> As far a census opinion meaning something.......some on this board declare that every important man of science has historically supported human evolution as being a scientific fact......Indeed human evolution (within species) is a fact of nature.  Man was created with the ability to evolve/adapt............if not, mankind would've became extinct when he 1st came into contact with the common cold virus or when he first encountered some drastic climate/weather change.
> 
> But there is a distinct difference between "horizontal evolution" which is a fact of science that demonstrates evolution within SPECIES and "vertical evolution" as taught by the Darwinian Quacks as a fact ......evolution of a vertical nature or the teaching that man has evolved from a different species.  They do this, muddy the waters, they present examples of evolution within species and declare.........see, facts, and then go off on a tangent narrative and claim this proves Vertical Evolution, evolution outside of species....by calling MUTATION as a reality that creates new species........but in reality MUTATION is the deformed entity of a completely healthy DNA example....mutation never adds onto a DNA, mutation takes away perfection and leaves deformity behind in its wake.
> 
> They will show different states of animalistic type characteristics of supposed different stages of human evolution.....when in reality the fossils found represent.....the remains of isolated pockets of humanity that attempted to survive via incestuous reproduction.  The fossils found are nothing but examples of deformed or mutated HUMANS as the DNA proves.
> 
> They attempt to declare, "See the great resemblance between normal DNA and these sub humans?"  Of course the DNA is close........but there is always something missing.....that which is missing is the reason for the deformity.
> 
> You will never see a Darwinist promote this possibility because it defeats their basic tenet of life having evolved randomly from NON LIVING MATTER.
> 
> There is a huge list of great men of science that dismisses Darwinian teaching as quackery.  There are many of these men of science that actually believe in the God of Creation.   1.  Joseph Lister........the father of antiseptic surgical practice
> 2.  Louis Pasteur who debunked the atheistic claim of "spontaneous generation of life from non living matter".
> 
> 3.  Isaac Newton......who believed in gravity, calculus and the Bible.  4. Johann Kepler astronomy.  5. Robert Boyle Chemistry.
> 6.  Georges Cuvier Paleontology.  7.  Charles Baggage computer science.  ............more great men of science that had a census opinion of accepting creationism over Darwinism?
> 
> Charles Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Ambrose Fleming....the list goes on and on........in fact up to 50% of the scientific community is beginning to drastically question Darwinian quackery.
> 
> Again.........anyone, SHOW ME THE LAW OF EVOUTION.   If not simply accept your place as being a member of a religious cult as anything can be made into a religion and its nothing short of worshiping to read some of the quackery presented as scientific evidence.
> 
> When they go off on this tangent teaching, claiming its SCIENCE.....notice the words ALWAYS used in these supposed Scientific opinions.   They use words such as, "points to", "suggests" "most likely" "could it be", etc.  Real scientific Terms



In science ... it's never enough to say something is wrong, we must also say what is correct ... what alternative theory do you present and how are you demonstrating it? ... 

Darwin took a step, and made good money ... his book is still in print ... but generally we use the Modern Synthesis as our framework today ... is there a better framework for research, communications and products? ... something that better explains COVID-03 ... 

2CH4 --> C2H6 + H2 ... simple collisions ... the rest of evolution follows quite naturally ... throw in a little ammonia and PRESTO ... we have Glycine ... every time we try ... or do I have to explain to you why carbon is the third most abundant element in the universe? ...


----------



## Clyde 154

ReinyDays said:


> In science ... it's never enough to say something is wrong, we must also say what is correct ... what alternative theory do you present and how are you demonstrating it? ...
> 
> Darwin took a step, and made good money ... his book is still in print ... but generally we use the Modern Synthesis as our framework today ... is there a better framework for research, communications and products? ... something that better explains COVID-03 ...
> 
> 2CH4 --> C2H6 + H2 ... simple collisions ... the rest of evolution follows quite naturally ... throw in a little ammonia and PRESTO ... we have Glycine ... every time we try ... or do I have to explain to you why carbon is the third most abundant element in the universe? ...


Can you spell D E F L E C T I O N?   So you are endorsing DARWINIAN CULTISM because of the money made in book sales?  And you throw in a few parroted Chem equations to feign intelligence?

Do you know what the best selling and most printed book of ALL TIME is?  Its nice to see you endorse "creationism", as the Holy Bible is the best selling work of literature in world history.  If book sales is the your source of calibrating truth. Thus..........on one hand according to the Darwinian Cultists.....you can't believe everything in print......yet that's all you have in support of YOUR RELIGIONOUS DOGMA?  How well Darwin has been peddled as truth? 

The Holy Bible in all its print form has sold more than 5 billion copies and has a constant annual sale estimated to be around 100 Million copies.

As stated previously.........why do all those who support Darwinism as a theory.........present nothing but SUBJECTIVE RHETORICAL BS as evidence?  As demonstrated.........book sales do not calibrate truth........its the objective content of those books that calibrate truth.

Regardless of how many consensus opinions exist that favor DARWIN..........there still is no "LAW" of evolution demonstrated to be a FACT of SCIENCE.  In fact every time  the basic tenet of natural evolution (life arising from dead matter.....aka., Spontaneous Generation of life from nothing).......that Theory has been rejected by the scientific method.

Science Method:  The use of empirical evidence that can be OBSERVED, REPEATED, with consistency of experimentation.  Mr. Pasteur demonstrated (just as the Scriptures declare..........life can only be reproduced naturally within species).  Life can only exist as produced from pre-existing life within the same species.

Every time there has been an experiment attempting to generate life from dead matter........Science has rejected that experiment as being false.

Yet.....there has never been a single experiment using the scientific method that has rejected CREATIONISM.  Which came first the chicken or the egg........logic and reason dictates that first there must be a chicken to lay the egg.....and where did that first chicken come from...........NOTHING as the Darwinist would declare?  Reality:  All of life on earth has in common one element............CARBON.   So is it surprising in the least that all life shares in some extent a common DNA signature?  Water and Carbon........both needed for life to exist.  Yet to hear the Darwinist speak..........C02 is a poison to all life on earth.

And its still the DOGMA of DARWIN that is claimed as TRUTH by the cultists.   Cultists so fanatic they refuse to accept opposing theories.  Science never runs from debate....it embraces it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ReinyDays said:


> In science ... it's never enough to say something is wrong, we must also say what is correct ... what alternative theory do you present and how are you demonstrating it? ...
> 
> Darwin took a step, and made good money ... his book is still in print ... but generally we use the Modern Synthesis as our framework today ... is there a better framework for research, communications and products? ... something that better explains COVID-03 ...
> 
> 2CH4 --> C2H6 + H2 ... simple collisions ... the rest of evolution follows quite naturally ... throw in a little ammonia and PRESTO ... we have Glycine ... every time we try ... or do I have to explain to you why carbon is the third most abundant element in the universe? ...


How dare you trigger Clyde, using "Real scientific Terms" like that. Shame on you. Please continue..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clyde 154 said:


> Darwinian evolution is not science its nothing but tax payer funded religious dogma.  Its taught as fact but in reality its an unprovable theory as there is no LAW OF EVOLUTION as taught in our school systems.
> 
> As far a census opinion meaning something.......some on this board declare that every important man of science has historically supported human evolution as being a scientific fact......Indeed human evolution (within species) is a fact of nature.  Man was created with the ability to evolve/adapt............if not, mankind would've became extinct when he 1st came into contact with the common cold virus or when he first encountered some drastic climate/weather change.
> 
> But there is a distinct difference between "horizontal evolution" which is a fact of science that demonstrates evolution within SPECIES and "vertical evolution" as taught by the Darwinian Quacks as a fact ......evolution of a vertical nature or the teaching that man has evolved from a different species.  They do this, muddy the waters, they present examples of evolution within species and declare.........see, facts, and then go off on a tangent narrative and claim this proves Vertical Evolution, evolution outside of species....by calling MUTATION as a reality that creates new species........but in reality MUTATION is the deformed entity of a completely healthy DNA example....mutation never adds onto a DNA, mutation takes away perfection and leaves deformity behind in its wake.
> 
> They will show different states of animalistic type characteristics of supposed different stages of human evolution.....when in reality the fossils found represent.....the remains of isolated pockets of humanity that attempted to survive via incestuous reproduction.  The fossils found are nothing but examples of deformed or mutated HUMANS as the DNA proves.
> 
> They attempt to declare, "See the great resemblance between normal DNA and these sub humans?"  Of course the DNA is close........but there is always something missing.....that which is missing is the reason for the deformity.
> 
> You will never see a Darwinist promote this possibility because it defeats their basic tenet of life having evolved randomly from NON LIVING MATTER.
> 
> There is a huge list of great men of science that dismisses Darwinian teaching as quackery.  There are many of these men of science that actually believe in the God of Creation.   1.  Joseph Lister........the father of antiseptic surgical practice
> 2.  Louis Pasteur who debunked the atheistic claim of "spontaneous generation of life from non living matter".
> 
> 3.  Isaac Newton......who believed in gravity, calculus and the Bible.  4. Johann Kepler astronomy.  5. Robert Boyle Chemistry.
> 6.  Georges Cuvier Paleontology.  7.  Charles Baggage computer science.  ............more great men of science that had a census opinion of accepting creationism over Darwinism?
> 
> Charles Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Ambrose Fleming....the list goes on and on........in fact up to 50% of the scientific community is beginning to drastically question Darwinian quackery.
> 
> Again.........anyone, SHOW ME THE LAW OF EVOUTION.   If not simply accept your place as being a member of a religious cult as anything can be made into a religion and its nothing short of worshiping to read some of the quackery presented as scientific evidence.
> 
> When they go off on this tangent teaching, claiming its SCIENCE.....notice the words ALWAYS used in these supposed Scientific opinions.   They use words such as, "points to", "suggests" "most likely" "could it be", etc.  Real scientific Terms


People who would fail 6th grade science quizzes should not be posting in this section.


----------



## ReinyDays

Clyde 154 said:


> Can you spell D E F L E C T I O N?   So you are endorsing DARWINIAN CULTISM because of the money made in book sales?  And you throw in a few parroted Chem equations to feign intelligence?
> 
> Do you know what the best selling and most printed book of ALL TIME is?  Its nice to see you endorse "creationism", as the Holy Bible is the best selling work of literature in world history.  If book sales is the your source of calibrating truth. Thus..........on one hand according to the Darwinian Cultists.....you can't believe everything in print......yet that's all you have in support of YOUR RELIGIONOUS DOGMA?  How well Darwin has been peddled as truth?
> 
> The Holy Bible in all its print form has sold more than 5 billion copies and has a constant annual sale estimated to be around 100 Million copies.
> 
> As stated previously.........why do all those who support Darwinism as a theory.........present nothing but SUBJECTIVE RHETORICAL BS as evidence?  As demonstrated.........book sales do not calibrate truth........its the objective content of those books that calibrate truth.
> 
> Regardless of how many consensus opinions exist that favor DARWIN..........there still is no "LAW" of evolution demonstrated to be a FACT of SCIENCE.  In fact every time  the basic tenet of natural evolution (life arising from dead matter.....aka., Spontaneous Generation of life from nothing).......that Theory has been rejected by the scientific method.
> 
> Science Method:  The use of empirical evidence that can be OBSERVED, REPEATED, with consistency of experimentation.  Mr. Pasteur demonstrated (just as the Scriptures declare..........life can only be reproduced naturally within species).  Life can only exist as produced from pre-existing life within the same species.
> 
> Every time there has been an experiment attempting to generate life from dead matter........Science has rejected that experiment as being false.
> 
> Yet.....there has never been a single experiment using the scientific method that has rejected CREATIONISM.  Which came first the chicken or the egg........logic and reason dictates that first there must be a chicken to lay the egg.....and where did that first chicken come from...........NOTHING as the Darwinist would declare?  Reality:  All of life on earth has in common one element............CARBON.   So is it surprising in the least that all life shares in some extent a common DNA signature?  Water and Carbon........both needed for life to exist.  Yet to hear the Darwinist speak..........C02 is a poison to all life on earth.
> 
> And its still the DOGMA of DARWIN that is claimed as TRUTH by the cultists.   Cultists so fanatic they refuse to accept opposing theories.  Science never runs from debate....it embraces it.



You seem oblivious to the fact that Darwinism was rejected as philosophy 100 years ago ... when the Modern Synthesis was developed ...  

But thank you for the _ad hominum_ attacks ... you admit my logic is infallible and have my person to discredit ... 

Just curious ... how are you reconciling you posts with Christ's beatitude "Blessed are the peacemakers"? ... seems to me you are mongering war, forming divisions, separating us into "your camp" and "the enemy camp" ... as Satan divided Adam from God ... as Satan divided Cain from Abel ... as Satan divides science and religion ... just seems to me you delight in setting stumbling blocks in front of other as to prevent them from seeking salvation through Christ ... some would say that's a sin ... 

*All of life on earth has in common one element............CARBON*

You forgot Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen ... even Phosphorus ... how on Earth could you forget Phosphorus ... just a nitpick ... reduced carbon ... ever heard of photosynthesis, it's not in the Bible, therefore it's not Creationism ... unless you're adding material to the Bible willy-nilly ... [shrugs shoulders] ... some would say that's a sure sign of the false prophet ... so tell us, just how flat is the Earth? ...

"Love your brother as you love yourself" ... self-loathing is a sin ... just saying ...


----------



## Clyde 154

ReinyDays said:


> You seem oblivious to the fact that Darwinism was rejected as philosophy 100 years ago ... when the Modern Synthesis was developed ...
> 
> But thank you for the _ad hominum_ attacks ... you admit my logic is infallible and have my person to discredit ...
> 
> Just curious ... how are you reconciling you posts with Christ's beatitude "Blessed are the peacemakers"? ... seems to me you are mongering war, forming divisions, separating us into "your camp" and "the enemy camp" ... as Satan divided Adam from God ... as Satan divided Cain from Abel ... as Satan divides science and religion ... just seems to me you delight in setting stumbling blocks in front of other as to prevent them from seeking salvation through Christ ... some would say that's a sin ...
> 
> *All of life on earth has in common one element............CARBON*
> 
> You forgot Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen ... even Phosphorus ... how on Earth could you forget Phosphorus ... just a nitpick ... reduced carbon ... ever heard of photosynthesis, it's not in the Bible, therefore it's not Creationism ... unless you're adding material to the Bible willy-nilly ... [shrugs shoulders] ... some would say that's a sure sign of the false prophet ... so tell us, just how flat is the Earth? ...
> 
> "Love your brother as you love yourself" ... self-loathing is a sin ... just saying ...



"FOR DO I NOW PERSUADE MEN, OR GOD? OR DO I SEEK TO PLEASE MEN?  FOR IF I YET PLEASED MEN, I SHOULD NOT BE THE SERVANT OF CHRIST." -- Gal. 1:10. 


LMAO.........you attack someone quoting from scripture and charge them with the same thing you just engaged....ad hominem attacks. (its ok for you.....but do as I say, not as I do? )  You omit the scriptures that command all deceit be exposed while defending the word of God?  If the bible is untrue in any part then it cast doubts on entire work of books.

It claims to be God's own words (2 Peter1:21).  It claims to complete (2 Tim. 3:16-17).  If the creation account in Genesis (as charged by those who endorse EVOLUTION) ..... if found untrue then everyone that refers to that account as truth is either a FOOL OR A LIAR.  Basically you are calling the Lord Jesus Christ, David and those appointed Apostle fools and a liars.

David, Jesus, Paul and Peter all quote from the creation account found in Genesis. 

Basic Christian teachings are based in part upon the creation accounting found in Genesis.  Jesus' explanation for divorce (Matt. 19:4-6).  Paul's explanation concerning the rights of women in leadership rolls.  (1 Tim. 2:12-15).  

Key Christian Doctrine would be absent if EVOLUTION were accepted in any form.......(theory based upon philosophy (which it is not taught in our schools its taught as FACT)   Especially Genesis 1-3.  Man has a soul that's unique to this reality.  The fact that men were created without sin yet fell into sin via free will choices in being made in the Image of God, having the authority to direct his own fate.  The Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience of God.  Man's need for salvation.  

The Bible teaches about creationism.  It refutes atheism (as I do).  It refutes pantheism (as I do), God transcends the created (something evolutionists attempt to lie about).  It refutes polytheism (as I do).  It refutes materialism (as I do).  It refutes Dualism (the theory that reality consists of 2 opposing forces) ....(as I do).   It refutes HUMANISM (as I do) as God is the ultimate CAUSE of everything (something the evolutionist can't disprove.....thus the ad hominem attacks.  

And lastly the Bible's account of Genesis refutes EVOLUTION itself. (as I do). 

What?  I should make nice and agree with you JUST TO GET ALONE even when you are teaching lies and dismissing the Holy Scriptures as LORE?  Really?  Is that what the scriptures declare?


----------



## ReinyDays

Clyde 154 said:


> "FOR DO I NOW PERSUADE MEN, OR GOD? OR DO I SEEK TO PLEASE MEN?  FOR IF I YET PLEASED MEN, I SHOULD NOT BE THE SERVANT OF CHRIST." -- Gal. 1:10.
> 
> 
> LMAO.........you attack someone quoting from scripture and charge them with the same thing you just engaged....ad hominem attacks. (its ok for you.....but do as I say, not as I do? )  You omit the scriptures that command all deceit be exposed while defending the word of God?  If the bible is untrue in any part then it cast doubts on entire work of books.
> 
> It claims to be God's own words (2 Peter1:21).  It claims to complete (2 Tim. 3:16-17).  If the creation account in Genesis (as charged by those who endorse EVOLUTION) ..... if found untrue then everyone that refers to that account as truth is either a FOOL OR A LIAR.  Basically you are calling the Lord Jesus Christ, David and those appointed Apostle fools and a liars.
> 
> David, Jesus, Paul and Peter all quote from the creation account found in Genesis.
> 
> Basic Christian teachings are based in part upon the creation accounting found in Genesis.  Jesus' explanation for divorce (Matt. 19:4-6).  Paul's explanation concerning the rights of women in leadership rolls.  (1 Tim. 2:12-15).
> 
> Key Christian Doctrine would be absent if EVOLUTION were accepted in any form.......(theory based upon philosophy (which it is not taught in our schools its taught as FACT)   Especially Genesis 1-3.  Man has a soul that's unique to this reality.  The fact that men were created without sin yet fell into sin via free will choices in being made in the Image of God, having the authority to direct his own fate.  The Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience of God.  Man's need for salvation.
> 
> The Bible teaches about creationism.  It refutes atheism (as I do).  It refutes pantheism (as I do), God transcends the created (something evolutionists attempt to lie about).  It refutes polytheism (as I do).  It refutes materialism (as I do).  It refutes Dualism (the theory that reality consists of 2 opposing forces) ....(as I do).   It refutes HUMANISM (as I do) as God is the ultimate CAUSE of everything (something the evolutionist can't disprove.....thus the ad hominem attacks.
> 
> And lastly the Bible's account of Genesis refutes EVOLUTION itself. (as I do).
> 
> What?  I should make nice and agree with you JUST TO GET ALONE even when you are teaching lies and dismissing the Holy Scriptures as LORE?  Really?  Is that what the scriptures declare?



You didn't answer my question ... how are you reconciling your posts with Christ's beatitude "Blessed are the peacemakers"? ... phaw, you'll never answer, which is an answer in itself ...

You're really uptight about this ... do you feel the same way about the periodic table of elements? ... that's another scientific framework that the Bible refutes ... how about astronomy, there's an entire science focused on discrediting the Bible in every way ... no problems with that? ... so why is evolution such a bug-a-boo with you? ...

The heathen are going to do what they do ... heathen things ... we as Christians are to forgive them, "they know not what they are doing" ... and treat them with kindness, as Christ Himself showed us ... even to those who were nailing Him to the cross ... He taught us to leave worldly matters to the worldly, "our delight is in the Law of the Lord" ... I find no Spiritual mischief if the heathen want to divide plants into 10 or so Phyla (evolution) ... I do see where that is more useful than Genesis 1:29: 1) Herbs that bear seed, 2) Trees that fruit after their own kind and 3) everything else is unclean (can not be eaten, can not be used as clothing, hell, can not even be touched except to kill) ...

Alas, most all the food in our grocery stores are of the third type ... frankenfoods ... eww ... so much for trusting the heathen eh? ... you're on your own if you get your organic foods from them filthy _filthy_ hippies ...

As far as _ad hominum_ attacks ... I didn't say you are a warmonger, I say you seem to be ... as your brother in Christ, I am responsible to help you get the Good Lord's word out ... maybe you might want to consider reworking your rhetoric, try to tone down the aggressiveness over the internet ... seriously, when has yelling and screaming ever worked to change people's minds in Real Life™? ...


----------



## Hollie

Clyde 154 said:


> "FOR DO I NOW PERSUADE MEN, OR GOD? OR DO I SEEK TO PLEASE MEN?  FOR IF I YET PLEASED MEN, I SHOULD NOT BE THE SERVANT OF CHRIST." -- Gal. 1:10.
> 
> 
> LMAO.........you attack someone quoting from scripture and charge them with the same thing you just engaged....ad hominem attacks. (its ok for you.....but do as I say, not as I do? )  You omit the scriptures that command all deceit be exposed while defending the word of God?  If the bible is untrue in any part then it cast doubts on entire work of books.
> 
> It claims to be God's own words (2 Peter1:21).  It claims to complete (2 Tim. 3:16-17).  If the creation account in Genesis (as charged by those who endorse EVOLUTION) ..... if found untrue then everyone that refers to that account as truth is either a FOOL OR A LIAR.  Basically you are calling the Lord Jesus Christ, David and those appointed Apostle fools and a liars.
> 
> David, Jesus, Paul and Peter all quote from the creation account found in Genesis.
> 
> Basic Christian teachings are based in part upon the creation accounting found in Genesis.  Jesus' explanation for divorce (Matt. 19:4-6).  Paul's explanation concerning the rights of women in leadership rolls.  (1 Tim. 2:12-15).
> 
> Key Christian Doctrine would be absent if EVOLUTION were accepted in any form.......(theory based upon philosophy (which it is not taught in our schools its taught as FACT)   Especially Genesis 1-3.  Man has a soul that's unique to this reality.  The fact that men were created without sin yet fell into sin via free will choices in being made in the Image of God, having the authority to direct his own fate.  The Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience of God.  Man's need for salvation.
> 
> The Bible teaches about creationism.  It refutes atheism (as I do).  It refutes pantheism (as I do), God transcends the created (something evolutionists attempt to lie about).  It refutes polytheism (as I do).  It refutes materialism (as I do).  It refutes Dualism (the theory that reality consists of 2 opposing forces) ....(as I do).   It refutes HUMANISM (as I do) as God is the ultimate CAUSE of everything (something the evolutionist can't disprove.....thus the ad hominem attacks.
> 
> And lastly the Bible's account of Genesis refutes EVOLUTION itself. (as I do).
> 
> What?  I should make nice and agree with you JUST TO GET ALONE even when you are teaching lies and dismissing the Holy Scriptures as LORE?  Really?  Is that what the scriptures declare?


I'm not clear why you believe that bibles refute anything. The Bibles are utterly terrible as an accurate rendering of history. If some perceived value is placed on the bibles as a science text, it becomes valueless when people find errors in it, as people invariably do. 

There is a common problem that is seen in the Science and Technology forum; religionists use sound-bytes (bible verses) ion frantic efforts to denigrate science Yes, understanding evolution and science will take some effort on your part. Is it worth it? Absolutely. You will learn that evolution is as much a fact as gravity. Moreover, science is not a philosophy as is religion. Philosophies are not constructed from experimentation or evidence.  Science is!


----------



## surada

PoliticalChic said:


> It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of* the terms* needed in the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "_*There are those*_ who don't _*know*_, and don't _*know that they*_ don't _*know*_.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:
> 
> “_Evolution is a fact_.” Science Believers
> 
> And this…
> 
> “_Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind._” The Pretense Called Evolution
> 
> 
> And this winner:
> 
> _“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution._” The Most Famous Fakes In Science
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin*: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. *Evolution means inheritable change over time.* It means new species. Most important for the discussion of *evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory.* That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only *not proven*, not a fact, but it *has been disproven* in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that *no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.*
> 
> Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.
> 
> 
> 4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
> Michael Behe
> 
> 
> 
> 5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.
> 
> This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’
> 
> What makes advancing it so important?
> 
> Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????











						Archaeology breakthrough as 1.5 million-year-old fossil discovered
					

A NEW STUDY has identified a major archaeology breakthrough as a 1.5 million-year-old human fossil has been discovered in Israel.




					www.express.co.uk


----------



## fncceo

Clyde 154 said:


> LMAO.........you attack someone quoting from scripture



You say scripture.. I say a work of bad fiction.


----------



## badger2

Defining species is problematic. Some of them use oxygen and others do not. The evolution of oxygen metabolism on Earth links to the origin of life on Earth. There is plenty of oxygen in the Universe existing as water.


----------



## Clyde 154

fncceo said:


> You say scripture.. I say a work of bad fiction.


You can "say" what you want...........there is nothing new under the son, an "antichrist" will always be an "antichrist".  I simply defend the truth.  You are free to accept or reject the God of Creation, you can freely decide to choose between good and evil.

Simply because you reject the truth does not mean that you will not be judged by that which you reject......The Word of God.

You see.........YOU do not get a choice of judgment, God has no respect of person.......the same justice applies to all.   Just like "ignorance" is no excuse under the laws of men, so you are without excuse when you waste the precious gifts of life and grace and feign ignorance concerning God when the evidence of His existence is clearly seen around you via the things which are made by THE WORD.  

"Thinking themselves to be wise........THEY BECAME FOOLS, WHEN THEY REJECTED GOD, and began worship the things that are made instead of the Creator of those things,  things like wealth, power, greed, money......making pagan idols of such."  -- Romans 1:22


"He who rejects Me (Christ), and does not receive My words, has that which judges him........THE WORD that I have spoken will judge him in the last day (the day of judgement)." -- John 12:48

"For as many who have sinned without the law, will also perish without the law..........the day when God will judge the secrets of of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." -- Romans 2:12-19

"And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened (your book of fiction  )........and the dead were judged, according to their works, by the things which were written in books." -- Rev. 20:12


----------



## miketx

Clyde 154 said:


> You can "say" what you want...........there is nothing new under the son, an "antichrist" will always be an "antichrist".  I simply defend the truth.  You are free to accept or reject the God of Creation, you can freely decide to choose between good and evil.
> 
> Simply because you reject the truth does not mean that you will not be judged by that which you reject......The Word of God.
> 
> You see.........YOU do not get a choice of judgment, God has no respect of person.......the same justice applies to all.   Just like "ignorance" is no excuse under the laws of men, so you are without excuse when you waste the precious gifts of life and grace and feign ignorance concerning God when the evidence of His existence is clearly seen around you via the things which are made by THE WORD.
> 
> "Thinking themselves to be wise........THEY BECAME FOOLS, WHEN THEY REJECTED GOD, and began worship the things that are made instead of the Creator of those things,  things like wealth, power, greed, money......making pagan idols of such."  -- Romans 1:22
> 
> 
> "He who rejects Me (Christ), and does not receive My words, has that which judges him........THE WORD that I have spoken will judge him in the last day (the day of judgement)." -- John 12:48
> 
> "For as many who have sinned without the law, will also perish without the law..........the day when God will judge the secrets of of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." -- Romans 2:12-19
> 
> "And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened (your book of fiction  )........and the dead were judged, according to their works, by the things which were written in books." -- Rev. 20:12











						Pascal’s Wager | Definition, Description, Criticisms, & Facts
					

Pascal’s wager,  practical argument for belief in God formulated by French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal. In his Pensées (1657–58), Pascal applied elements of game theory to show that belief in the Christian religion is rational. He argued that people can choose to believe in God...



					www.britannica.com


----------



## Clyde 154

miketx said:


> Pascal’s Wager | Definition, Description, Criticisms, & Facts
> 
> 
> Pascal’s wager,  practical argument for belief in God formulated by French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal. In his Pensées (1657–58), Pascal applied elements of game theory to show that belief in the Christian religion is rational. He argued that people can choose to believe in God...
> 
> 
> 
> www.britannica.com


I prefer to use Applied Science to conclude the truth.........There is a Super(ior) Natural (to nature) Cause of this physical plane of reality as governed by the Applied Laws of Physics.   Why?  Because the basic laws of physics demonstrate the fact that nature cannot explain its own existence via an application of the Science of Physics. 

Faith not only includes an emotionally based response to believing in God........but it also involves an "intellectual" response in accepting facts in evidence.   The laws of causality and the laws of thermodynamics demonstrate that Nothing can create itself from nothing.  When you begin with nothing, nothing is all that will ever exist within the confines of physical reality that is governed by unimpeachable laws.


----------



## fncceo

Clyde 154 said:


> you can freely decide to choose between good and evil.



I did ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Ugh another garbage thread


----------



## ding

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ugh another garbage thread


You should become a mod so you can police the board.


----------

