# Marx, Math And Myth



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th.  But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, _*mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible*_*.*



1.Karl Marx came from a family that was very Jewish, rabbinic scholars on both sides. But, to prosper in Germany, his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old. 

“Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in the German city of Trier. His family was Jewish but later converted to Protestantism in 1824 in order to avoid anti-Semitic laws and persecution. For this reason, among others, *Marx rejected religion early on in his youth and made it absolutely clear that he was an atheist.” *
Religion as Opium of the People

His economic theories revolved around Jews, money, and how the two had corrupted the world. *Nothing could have worked better for Karl Marx than a tract in science that would obviate any need to premise God as an explanation for the biodiversity of our world.*
Darwin was the answer to Marx’s prayers, if Marx could figure out to whom to pray…..and among the many problems with Darwin’s theory, *mathematics obviates any claim that Darwin's theory works.*



2. Karl Marx was thrilled when he became aware of Darwin’s work.

The major antithesis of religion, communism and all of its iterations, has a need to banish religion… One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote *to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,* and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.





3. While the 20th century proved the fallacy that is Marxist communism, unfortunately *our neo-Marxist government schools persist* in propping up that love of Marx’s, *the theory with more holes than Swiss cheese, Darwin’s Origin of Species thesis.*
Certainly the fact that in a century and a half, with more professional scientists at work now than in all of history combined, *there has never….NEVER….been even one case of one species becoming another, not in nature, nor in a laboratory, should be a clue to how poor an explanation or evolution, Darwin's thesis is.*

But, some clearly *false narratives survive*….like socialism….and Darwinian evolution.




4. It isn’t just biologists, biochemists, paleontologists, geneticists, who have a bone to pick with Darwin. Lots of *mathematicians are hostile*, as well.
*“Mathematicians over the years have complained that Darwinism’s numbers just do not add up.* In 1966 leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia because the organizer, Martin Kaplan, had overheard “a rather weird discussion between four mathematicians … on *mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution.*

A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians, though, were not persuaded that the fault was theirs. As one said: _There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology_. Schützenberger, M. P. (1967) “Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, p. 75.
 [Found in Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: The-Biochemical-Challenge-to-Evolution”]



So…when *Darwin’s theory fails the test of mathematics*…..who ya’ gonna call….ghost busters???


----------



## Taz (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th.  But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, _*mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible*_*.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your quote about Math and evolution is from 1967.


----------



## Taz (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th.  But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, _*mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible*_*.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your quote about Math and evolution is from 1967. And he "claimed", lol.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th.  But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, _*mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible*_*.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_*"mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible*_*.''*

False. Your silly cut and paste ''quotes'' are a laughable joke.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th.  But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, _*mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible*_*.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...







__





						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.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

The end of evolution? | Books, Et Al.
					

A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence




					blogs.sciencemag.org
				




A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence.

 In 1996, biochemist Michael Behe introduced the notion of “irreducible complexity,” arguing that some biomolecular structures could not have evolved because their functionality requires interacting parts, the removal of any one of which renders the entire apparatus defective. This claim excited creationists and remains a central plank of the “intelligent design” movement, despite being rightly rejected by a U.S. federal judge in 2005 in _Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District_. In _Darwin Devolves_, Behe continues his quixotic efforts to overturn modern evolutionary theory.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic has hit another home run with her stellar OP  ...


----------



## midcan5 (Sep 14, 2020)

Hi PC,  I see you are still beating that same dog.  Poor thing is really dead by now.  You must realize most Americans and especially readers online are not interested in old stuff.  BTW Any positive comments on Trump?  Are you a cult follower too?  Our nation appears to be getting dumber by the minute as so much nonsense comes out of the White House.  I'm glad that some republicans see him as the threat he is to America.  Have a great day, soon you can beat up on Biden/Harris. 

Trump has hurt enough Americans and children. If there is a God I hope he / she is in favor of caging children, breaking up families, and taking healthcare away from his people. What say ye, God?  


'100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans'









						100 Ways, in 100 Days, that Trump Has Hurt Americans
					

Trump’s actions during his first 100 days in office have time and again benefitted corporations and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans.




					www.americanprogress.org
				





*'We've got to do something': Republican rebels come together to take on Trump'*









						'We've got to do something': Republican rebels come together to take on Trump
					

A slew of organized Republican groups have sprung up to do all they can to defeat Trump in November. Will their effort work?




					www.theguardian.com
				





*"What is patriotism? Let us begin with what patriotism is not. *It is not patriotic to dodge the draft and to mock war heroes and their families. It is not patriotic to discriminate against active-duty members of the armed forces in one's companies, or to campaign to keep disabled veterans away from one's property. It is not patriotic to compare one's search for sexual partners in New York with the military service in Vietnam that one has dodged. It is not patriotic to avoid paying taxes, especially when American working families do pay. It is not patriotic to ask those working, taxpaying American families to finance one's own presidential campaign, and then to spend their contributions in one's own companies. It is not patriotic to admire foreign dictators. It is not patriotic to cultivate a relationship with Muammar Gaddafi; or to say that Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are superior leaders. It is not patriotic to call upon Russia to intervene in an American presidential election. It is not patriotic to cite Russian propaganda at rallies." Timothy Snyder  'On Tyranny'

*Excellent piece on current America.

I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump *


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

midcan5 said:


> Hi PC,  I see you are still beating that same dog.  Poor thing is really dead by now.  You must realize most Americans and especially readers online are not interested in old stuff.  BTW Any positive comments on Trump?  Are you a cult follower too?  Our nation appears to be getting dumber by the minute as so much nonsense comes out of the White House.  I'm glad that some republicans see him as the threat he is to America.  Have a great day, soon you can beat up on Biden/Harris.
> 
> Trump has hurt enough Americans and children. If there is a God I hope he / she is in favor of caging children, breaking up families, and taking healthcare away from his people. What say ye, God?
> 
> ...





So you can't find a single thing in the OP that irked you so, you had to attempt to change the subject?


Seems I hit the mark again.


I have four or five more posts on this subject that will anger you even more.


Stay tuned.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

5. Mathematics serves as a test for biological theories, especially that of Darwin. We begin with the simplest of living systems: where did they come from?

“The Miller *Urey Experiment*. ... In the 1950's, biochemists *Stanley* Miller and Harold *Urey*, conducted an *experiment* which demonstrated that several organic compounds could be formed spontaneously by simulating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere.”
The Miller Urey Experiment - Windows to the Universe

They ran a current through gases they assumed for the primordial atmosphere: water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. Voila! The found simple amino acids, precursors of protein!

First problem:
“This *experiment*, however, was proven *wrong* later when it was discovered that they had used the *wrong* gases, which was why they had received such favorable results. When it was repeated with the correct gases, it did not work.”
Why is the miller-urey experiment controversial? | Socratic





Second problem: the math.

“Knowing that no primordial soup existed on earth, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe did not limit their calculations to just this planet, but looked at *the probability of life to form anywhere in the universe.* Hoyle summarizes what they found concerning the likelihood of an accidental formation of the most basic DNA:

The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and *the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.*

Even the need for only two enzymes to operate in association is sufficient to make the situation quite implausible... There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup... Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism", Simon and Schuster, NY, 1981
Quoted here: Bibliography




So….if the probability of the random interaction of molecules needed to form organic molecules is faulty….how can science begin by assuming life, much less evolution?


There is a value to Darwin's theory.....but it isn't in science.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/intelligent-design-gets-even-dumber/2019/03/08/7a8e72dc-289e-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html
		



The notion of “intelligent design” arose after opponents of evolution repeatedly failed on First Amendment grounds to get Bible-based creationism taught in the public schools. Their solution: Take God out of the mix and replace him with an unspecified “intelligent designer.” They added some irrelevant mathematics and fancy biochemical jargon, and lo: intelligent design, which scientists have dubbed “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”

But the tuxedo is fraying, for intelligent design has been rejected not just by biologists but also by judges who recognize it as poorly disguised religion. Nevertheless, its advocates persist. Among the most vocal is Michael J. Behe, a biology professor at Lehigh University whose previous books, despite withering criticism from scientists, have sold well in a country where 76 percent of us think God had some role in human evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

Intelligent design is not science, [but is] grounded in theology [and] cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. —_District Judge John E. Jones III in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005)._


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

Intelligent Design Creationism: Fraudulent Science.
					

Creationism and Intelligent Design are religiously motivated pseudoscientific notions that threaten the inegrity of science.



					lockhaven.edu
				





*Intelligent Design Creationism:
Fraudulent Science, Bad Philosophy. *




The creation-evolution controversy.
© Sidney Harris, ScienceCartoonsPlus.com








*Introduction.*
There are various forms of fake science, bad science, and perverted science. History has seen many come, and decline, but none ever seem to die. The ideas of flat earth, hollow earth, astrology, alchemy and perpetual motion have supporters even today. These are interesting examples of the human ability to hold to an idea even without supportive evidence, and even in the face of contrary evidence. They, however, pose little threat to science, which simply ignores them and goes about its work.

A newer pseudoscience arose, first called "creationism" or "creation science", which tried to impose the literal interpretation of Biblical accounts into science, and into the schools. This movement had considerable public support amongst fundamentalist Christians. Scientists generally ignored it as irrelevant to their work. In recent years a movement called "intelligent design" (ID) has been promoted by a handful of people who write books aimed at non-scientists. These authors claim that intelligent design is not a religious idea, but the public speeches of some of them reveal that their goal is to get "God back into science and into school classrooms". Creationists, having largely failed in their efforts, lend their support to intelligent design, as perhaps the best they can get—for now.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

Revisiting Michael Behe's challenge and revealing a closed mind
					






					sandwalk.blogspot.com
				




It's been twenty years since Michael Behe published _Darwin's Black Box_ and Intelligent Design Creationists are flagellating themselves over the fact that it had so little impact on creationism. The USA is becoming more secular with each passing year. Religion is on the decline.

In their attempt to deal with their defeat, the main ID blog has been publishing "Behe's Greatest Hits," which is a euphemistic way of saying "Behe's Greatest Failures." The latest one caught my eye. It's Best of Behe: An Open Letter to Professors Kenneth Miller and PZ Myers.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

"People cited violation of the First Amendment when a New Jersey schoolteacher asserted that evolution and the Big Bang are not scientific and that Noah's ark carried dinosaurs. This case is not about the need to separate church and state; it's about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

What is "Intelligent Design" Creationism? | National Center for Science Education
					

en español




					ncse.ngo
				




IDC proponents usually avoid explicit references to God, attempting to present a veneer of secular scientific inquiry. IDC proponents introduced some new phrases into anti-evolution rhetoric, such as "irreducible complexity" (Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box, 1996) and "specified complexity" (William Dembski: The Design Inference, 1998), but the basic principles behind these phrases have long histories in creationist attacks on evolution. Underlying both of these concepts, and foundational to IDC itself, is an early 19th century British theological view, the "argument from design."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

The math skewers Darwinian theory.

6. Stephen C. Meyer has more recently broken down the probability along slightly different lines, for a small protein molecule, a precursor to living systems, but to the same conclusion:

"The probability of building a chain of 100 amino acids in which all linkages involve peptide bonds is roughly 1 chance in 1030."

"The probability of attaining at random only L-amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 100 amino acids long is (1/2)100 or again roughly 1 chance in 1030." [only left-handed amino acid arrangements can be tolerated by functioning proteins]

"…*we find that the probability of achieving a functional sequence of amino acids in several functioning proteins at random is still "vanishingly small," roughly 1 chance in 1065 - an astronomically large number - for a protein only one hundred amino acids in length."*

"If one also factors in the probability of attaining proper bonding and optical isomers, the probability of constructing a rather short, functional protein at random becomes so small as to be *effectively zero* (no more than 1 chance in 10125)…" [emphasis mine] 82

Meyer, Stephen C., "Word Games: DNA, Design, & Intelligence", _Touchstone_, July/August 1999, p. 47

Quoted here: Bibliography



Soooo….is the mathematics wrong, or is Darwin’s theory?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

7. The DNA molecule is far, far larger than that simple 100-amino acid molecule calculated above.

*What mathematics does is obviate the view that Darwin could be correct if the DNA of every type of organism could occur by random, by accident, by luck.*

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, *a zero probability of occurrence* (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is* no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations* (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.





8. *This means that it is impossible for an organism to be built by natural selection working on small changes*, i.e., Darwin's theory. The sudden production of an new and unique organism would fit the bill for evolution, except that

a. there is no mathematical probability for such an event.

b. if the religious view were implied, Leftists would have a fit.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

8. IDiot book by Stephen Meyer can't be refuted by scientists

The IDiots at the Discovery Institute have evolved something that they think is a winning strategy. They publish a book that has lots of scientific-sounding words then they embark on a massive publicity campaign to promote it as the latest scientific breakthroughs showing that evolution is wrong (and, therefore, God did it). Then they wait for the bad reviews to come in and concentrate on rebutting the reviewers. They get as much publicity by pretending that the reviewers are biased as they do from selling the books in the first place.

They use four main tactics to avoid admitting that they are wrong [see What Do You Do When All the Reviews Are Bad?]. One of them is to claim that all the reviewers are ignoring the main arguments in the book. That's what Stephen Meyer does in the video below. It's titled, "The Biggest Failure of Critics." (Warning, this has been tested with the Mark X Irony Meter and it passes. I can't guarantee that earlier models will survive.)


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> The mathematics that indicts Marxism is found in the more than 100 million human being slaughtered in the name of Karl Marx during the century of slaughter, the 20th.  But, just as Karl Marx used the myth that Darwin’s theory explained the diversity of life on earth, _*mathematics proves that Darwinian evolution is not possible*_*.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Definitely not the Right Wing.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

9. The folly of religionism being substituted for science.





__





						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
				




Stephen C. Meyer is a philosopher and one of the hotshots of the Discovery Institute. And like some philosophers and all Discovery Institute people, he likes to make grand claims about scientific fields about which he must be counted as an illiterate. Meyer helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the major hive for the ID creationist movement. Meyer is currently vice president and a senior fellow at CSC, and a director of the Access Research Network. He has been described as “the person who brought ID (intelligent design) to DI (Discovery Institute)”, he contributed to the second edition of Dean Kenyon’s “Of Pandas and People”, wrote (with Ralph Seelke) the ID textbook “Explore Evolution”, was appointed by the Texas Board of Education to be on the committee reviewing Texas’s science curriculum standards, is the primary link to DI sponsor and Taliban theocrat loon Howard Ahmanson, and was partly responsible for the Wedge Strategy, as well as an active speaker and debate panelist.

In 1999, Meyer (with David DeWolf and Mark DeForrest) designed a legal strategy for introducing intelligent design into public schools in the book “Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum.” (I mean, the point of ID is to get creationism and religion into the schools, not to do science). He is perhaps most famous for trying to realize the strategy through helping to introduce ID to the Dover Area School District (more extensively here), and for his ridiculous2009 book “Signature in the Cell” (which a probably drunk/dementia suffering Thomas Nagel actually praised, flaunting his own ignorance of science). PZ Myers was offered a review copy by Meyer’s assistant Janet Oberembt, but never received it. The book actually makes twelve “predictions” for ID (although they are not predictions in the ordinary scientific sense because they are not derived from any concrete theory, and they all concern testing the theory of evolution, not ID). He also offers a “theory”. The theory is unrelated to the predictions. He derives no predictions from his theory. He offers nothing resembling a coherent justification either, so the book didn’t receive much positive feedback from actual scientists. He has offered some appeals to authority, however (“Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Darwinist”).

In March 2002 he announced the “teach the controversy” strategy aimed at promoting the false idea that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education. Since Meyer knows this is false, he was lying, but dishonesty isn’t exactly a surprising trait in ID advocates. The presentation included a bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "”Darwinian evolution”. When NCSE contacted the authors, none of the authors who responded (the authors of thirty-four of the papers) thought that their research provided evidence against evolution. Meyer also publicly claimed that the “Santorum Amendment” was part of the Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was required to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. Which is demonstrably false, but tells you a lot about the DI creationists.

Of course, he thinks there is active persecution of the purportedly fast-growing number of scientists rejecting evolution in Academia (probably because he cannot find any). He was interviewed about those claims in Expelled.
*Diagnosis: One of the staunchest, most influential, most dishonest anti-science advocates in the world. Crackpot and complete hack.*


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

10. *"Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology"* and *"intelligent design is not a scientific concept."*
--John Marberger, President George W. Bush's science adviser, responding to Bush's suggestion that we teach intelligent design creationism in public schools


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

9. Let’s insert that ol’ ‘*an infinite number of random possibilities’* sophistry.


The "The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare."
Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yup….they randomly create the works of Shakespeare….or the diversity of life we witness today.


 There are arguments that seem to make sense, until they are examined in the light of reality. Take* "infinity." 
Given an infinite number of trials, any outcome that has a non-zero probability, will occur. No matter how unlikely....it will happen. *


Here's the problem for those applying this ploy: it isn't possible in the real world.

" Now, before one attempts to explain away the obvious problem by inserting the term ‘infinity,’ let’s agree that* infinity does not exist in the real world.* So, without ‘infinity,’ it follows that everything in the universe is finite, therefore had a beginning….and, an end." 
Andrew Parker, "The Genesis Enigma," chapter nine.



I said earlier, 'Upon close inspection, none hold up as "proof" but rather as conjecture, and an appeal to logic. Philosophy rather than science.'

Meaning that *there is no 'infinity explanation' to account for evolution.*
Mathematics proves that the number of attempts to form the compounds necessary to explain the diversity of life could not have occurred. 


Darwin's theory has moment.....but in politics, not in science.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

11. "Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."
--Reverend George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory

12. “ID leaders know the benefits of submitting their work to independent review and have established at least two purportedly "peer-reviewed" journals for ID articles. However, one has languished for want of material and quietly ceased publication, while the other has a more overtly philosophical orientation. Both journals employ a weak standard of "peer review" that amounts to no more than vetting by the editorial board or society fellows."
--Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey in "Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution" Washington University Law Quarterly 83 (1)

13. “The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows."
--Charles Darwin from _The Autobiography of Charles Darwin_

14. “While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
--Lehigh University Biochemistry Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

15. “there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
--Michael Behe, 2005


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

16.  Eric Rothschild: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
Michael Behe: Yes, that's correct.
--Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Trial transcript: Day 11 (October 18, 2005), PM Session, Part 1

17. “We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
--Ray Mummert, Dover PA pastor


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

10. Where were we...oh...right: The two arguments for Darwin from government school grads are the fossil record and the existence of DNA.

*The hope for Darwinists is that DNA and RNA will prove Darwin where fossil evidence failed.....does it?*
No, not really. Begin by considering the immense complexity of the DNA molecule,...


A quick tutorial: DNA is a huge molecule that holds the blueprints for every one of the thousands and thousands of enzymes, molecules, and structures that make up each different cell, and identify each organism.
OK, here it comes- the reason why Darwinian gradualism cannot be correct:

...the entire DNA must be complete *and in the correct order of nucleotides* and it must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called _irreducible complexity_. *This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.



See, one small change, and the molecule is ka-put! It is not available for a next small change.*

'DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—*humans have three billion in every nucleus. *(See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’) 
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



But....gee, given millions of years, couldn't one 'good' mutation at a time account for the kind of evolution that Darwin suggests???

No...here's the basis for the 'no'....

"*Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the fiftieth power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence *(and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000.
In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."—*I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," (1984), p. 205.



 Get the point?_ Those tiny, random changes that Darwin proposed would not prepare an organism for the next tiny alteration…. It would be lethal._



I have yet to see any of the Darwinist drones attempt to dispute this.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

11. Now, a quick lesson on the _irreducible complexity of DNA_, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.

DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’) DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



Quick example of what changing a single one of those 580,000 ‘letters,’ nucleotides, will do the genetic message:

The nucleotides are 'read' in groups of three...Let's say that this short sentence is the information needed for the cell to build a protein, and we’ll use a sentence with three letter words as though the letters were that nucleotide triplet:

* "**The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat.**"*


Simple, easily understood.....

This sentence represents a gene....I know, much too short...but it's just an example!

Let's assume that each letter corresponds to a nucleotide base, and each word represents a codon, a triplet. The definition of 'codon:' a unit that consists of three adjacent bases on a DNA molecule and that determines the position of a specific amino acid in a protein molecule during protein synthesis.





						Basic Genetics
					






					learn.genetics.utah.edu
				






So.... via a Darwinian random change, what we would call a mutation, would leave out, or add, any one letter in the message, _watch how it changes the ‘meaning’ of that sentence:_

Drop the first letter, and watch what this sentence, "The sun was hot but the old man did not get his hat."…..It becomes*:            "hes unw ash otb utt heo ldm and idn otg eth ish at." *

Then it is not the same message at all...the 'mutation' makes the DNA meaningless at best....or lethal at worst! *And that is why nearly every single mutation is harmful at best, deadly at worst.*



Now apply the idea to the huge DNA molecule....and one can see that Darwin's premise, alterations in the DNA would not produce a new species.....it would destroy the organism.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> The math skewers Darwinian theory.
> 
> 6. Stephen C. Meyer has more recently broken down the probability along slightly different lines, for a small protein molecule, a precursor to living systems, but to the same conclusion:
> 
> ...


The assumptions that life must be based on DNA and that the process is random are where you went wrong.  You're welcome.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> 10. Where were we...oh...right: The two arguments for Darwin from government school grads are the fossil record and the existence of DNA.
> 
> *The hope for Darwinists is that DNA and RNA will prove Darwin where fossil evidence failed.....does it?*
> No, not really. Begin by considering the immense complexity of the DNA molecule,...
> ...


You assume life began from DNA.  You have it backwards DNA began from life.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> 11. Now, a quick lesson on the _irreducible complexity of DNA_, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.
> 
> DNA is what causes the production of every compound and structure in a cell, and this is why it need be soooooo huge! Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’) DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com
> 
> ...


Do you actually understand what you're posting or you just bow to authority?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 10. Where were we...oh...right: The two arguments for Darwin from government school grads are the fossil record and the existence of DNA.
> ...





Gads, your'e a moron.

And you don't mind revealing it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 11. Now, a quick lesson on the _irreducible complexity of DNA_, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.
> ...





I never like being repetitious, but, yet again, I must note that this is not a thread for one with your limited knowledge of the subject.

Stick to the finger painting thread and the one on constructing stuff with a mixture of flour and water.

See ya'....


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I'm chalk up that non-answer in the "Is not" category.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

18. “To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it."
--Richard Dawkins,

19. “Many states have brought in Intelligent Design but they have called it science. A design needs a designer which is god. It's religion, not science."
--William Nowers, one of the founders of Creation and Evolution Studies classes in Virginia.

20. "Incorporating intelligent design into science classrooms is an obvious impediment to scientific progress."
--Alan J. Scott in "Danger! Scientific Inquiry Hazard" Skeptical Inquirer, 

21. “Let's not kid ourselves. Regardless of superficial scientific appearances, intelligent design was fabricated by a handful of Christian apologists with the mission of discrediting evolution and of bringing conservative Christian values into public school classrooms."
--Charles L. Rulon in "Debating Creationists" Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 31, No. 3, May/June 2007

22. "... putting intelligent design in opposition to Darwin is like offering a program on faith healing versus oncology. Faith healing is worth discussing, but not as a scientific alternative to medical treatment ..."
--Lee Cullum, "


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

23.  "Pseudoscientists make poorly substantiated or demonstrably false claims and refuse to relinquish them when shown the counterevidence. 'Scientific' creationism and its 2.0 version, 'intelligent design,' provide the canonical examples of the conservative embrace of pseudoscience. Creationists and intelligent design proponents claim to act scientifically, but in fact they do little more than spread scientific-sounding arguments in defense of a biblical or religious agenda. It is doubtful whether any amount of evidence would change their minds."
--Chris Mooney in The Republican War on Science p. 22 

24. "Dembski's law of conservation of information and the rest of Intelligent Design are not just pseudoscience, they are wrong pseudoscience."
--Victor J. Stenger in


----------



## abu afak (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians, though, were not persuaded that the fault was theirs. As one said: _There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology_. Schützenberger, M. P. (1967) “Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, p. 75.
> [Found in Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: The-Biochemical-Challenge-to-Evolution”]
> 
> 
> ...



*Michael J. Behe* (1952) is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the *Pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design *(ID).[2][3] He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known as an advocate for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case _Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District_ where his views were cited in the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is religious in nature.[4]

Behe's claims about* the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[5][6] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement Repudiating Behe's views and intelligent design.*[7][8]

`


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

“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 (Sep 14, 2020)

William Dembski, with doctorates in both mathematics and philosophy, in his book, ``Uncommon Dissent’’, which is a collection of *articles denouncing many of the claims Darwinists make, says, in reference to speciation*, "That’s the problem with Darwinism: In place of detailed, testable accounts of how a complex, biological system could realistically have emerged, *Darwinism offers just-so stories *about how such systems might have emerged in some idealized conceptual space *far removed from biological reality."

"...just so stories...."

For Liberals reading along, that means fairy tales.*


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

25. Creationists have also changed their name ... to intelligent design theorists who study 'irreducible complexity' and the 'abrupt appearance' of life—yet more jargon for 'God did it.' ... Notice that they have no interest in replacing evolution with native American creation myths or including the Code of Hammarabi alongside the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools. 
-Michael Shermer



26. Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact–which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent’s position. They are good at that. I don’t think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party! 
-Stephen J. Gould


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, *a zero probability of occurrence* (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is* no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations* (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.

_“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””_
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective


----------



## justinacolmena (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.


You can't be Jewish among the Jews and Protestant among the Protestants.
Jesus was Jewish, of the tribe of Judah.

Mary and Joseph were devout Jews.

Jesus Christ had no intention of rejecting the right Jewish doctrine or altering the way it was practiced. His ministry of faith was to the Gentiles, mainly Greeks and Romans at that time and place.

Christians of faith cannot deny the faith of Jews or persecute Jewish people.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 14, 2020)

justinacolmena said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > his father converted the family to Protestantism when Karl was only six years old.
> ...





What does this have to do with the item to which you linked?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

Intelligent Design: The Glass is Empty





__





						Intelligent Design. The Glass is Empty.
					

Why intelligent design is not a science, The seriously flawed argument from design.



					lockhaven.edu
				




A frustrating basic pitfall:
The philosophers' final downfall.
They try and they try
But they can't reason why
The real world should make sense at all.

The latest ploy of "evolution deniers" is the notion of "Intelligent Design", being promoted as a "scientific theory" worthy of (a) replacing the theory of evolution, and (b) sitting alongside Newton's mechanics as one of the great ideas of science.

It has a few problems.

The Intelligent Design (ID) argument doesn't qualify as a proper scientific theory.
The ID argument has the trappings of a logical argument, but it is full of logical gaps and holes. It is "pseudo-logic".
No scientific evidence specifically supports the assumptions of the theory. Any evidence seemingly supportive of it could equally support countless other fantastic theories, even contradictory ones.
The argument uses words in deceptive ways, without carefully defining them.

As an argument purportedly about "intelligence", ID is pretty "dumb". Upon careful examination it is revealed as a "con", so cleverly constructed that it's hard to see it as anything but a deliberate fraud. It is something like the magician's illusion, distracting and misdirecting the attention of the audience, while hiding the nature of the deception and the hanky-panky skillfully executed where the audience doesn't notice. And the result is—a miracle! Like all magicians' tricks, the result is, as perceived by the audience, an apparently impossible event. That's the definition of a miracle.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

Intelligent Design Isn't Even
a Valid Scientific Hypothesis.





__





						Intelligent Design. The Glass is Empty.
					

Why intelligent design is not a science, The seriously flawed argument from design.



					lockhaven.edu
				




In science an hypothesis is a proposition about nature that one can put to the test to determine its validity. It could be a wild guess, but usually it is is more than that, a question that arises naturally from experimental investigation or from theoretical considerations. In either case, it must be a question that is capable of being answered by experimental tests. If the tests confirm the hypothesis, we are encouraged to try more and different tests, preferably independent tests by independent researchers. When it becomes clear that the hypothesis is supported in all cases, without exception, it may be promoted to the status of a recognized law of nature, and may even become a part of an accepted scientific theory. A scientific theory is the highest level of scientific knowledge. It must be supported by extensive experimental testing and consistently and logically integrated with other established theories.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 14, 2020)

*The dangers of creationism in education*





__





						The dangers of creationism in education
					





					www.assembly.coe.int
				




Report
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mrs Anne BRASSEUR, Luxembourg, ALDE

_Summary_

Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes.

However, some people call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of the theory of evolution. From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.

The Assembly calls on education authorities in member states to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 14, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.
> 
> _“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
> The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””_
> Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective


The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where *Dancing With The Stars* is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.


----------



## james bond (Sep 14, 2020)

Hollie said:


> 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).
> 
> ...



We already saw your fake looney blogsite, so no need to repeat.

You have no evidence using mathematics or else show us something.

Why not look up Ronald Fisher in your looney website?

Ronald Fisher, a mathematician and one of the founding fathers of the Modern Theory of Evolution, proposed a Natural Law of Evolution that stated that given random chance induced changes (mutations), the fitness of an organism will always INCREASE over time due to natural selection.  He derived that this evolutionary law assumes an equal number of beneficial mutations = number of harmful mutations and symmetrical distribution of beneficial vs harmful mutations.

However, extensive research has shown that the distribution of beneficial-vs-harmful mutations is NOT equal and symmetrical.  Instead the distribution is very heavily biased towards HARMFUL mutations.  (No surprise there as this is what creation scientists have been saying from the beginning.)  Anyway, experimental measurements shows that 1) There are NO observed beneficial mutations at all, or 2) Beneficial mutations IF present are below detection limits of the experiments, or 3) Beneficial mutations IF present are less than one in a million mutations. The rest are majority HARMFUL along with some fraction that are neutral.

When we add in this experimentally determined distribution, the MATH shows that in biologically realistic situations (with asymmetric mutational distributions), the fitness of the species DECLINES over time in general.   It means that mutations and natural selection do NOT work in reality.

You might as well add your name to your fake looney website haha.


----------



## initforme (Sep 14, 2020)

So if we get rid of evolution what other THEORY(which cannot be proven) should replace it?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 15, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.
> ...




Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'

But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.


From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by  the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.


See  ya' soon!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 15, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




That poster is simply proof that the indoctrination of government schooling is indelible......in the needy and weak-minded.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 15, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Not surprisingly, absent your usual practice of dumping a phony ''quote'', you're really at a loss to offer a coherent comment.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 15, 2020)

initforme said:


> So if we get rid of evolution what other THEORY(which cannot be proven) should replace it?




Not 'evolution'....Darwin's version of an explanation.

Read more carefully.



If you ever get around to reading, you will find that there are a number of other explanations for the diversity of life.


See if you understand this:

“Irving Kristol is a prominent social theorist with a talent for recognizing ideological obfuscation, and he applied that talent to Darwinism in an essay in _The New York Times_. Kristol observed that Darwinian theory, which explains complex life as the product of small genetic mutations and “survival of the fittest,” is known to be valid only for variations within the biological species.

That Darwinian evolution can gradually transform one kind of creature into another is merely a biological hypothesis, not a fact. *He noted that science abounds with rival opinions about the origin of life and that some scientists have questioned whether the word “evolution” carries much meaning. *

Kristol conceded that creation-science is a matter of faith and not science, and should not be taught in the schools, but he thought that its defenders still had a point: It is reasonable to suppose that if evolution were taught more cautiously, *as a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses rather than as an unchallengeable certainty,* it would be far less controversial. As things now stand, the religious fundamentalists are not far off the mark when they assert that evolution, as generally taught, has an unwarranted anti-religious edge to it.”
Johnson, “Darwin On Trial”


----------



## Hollie (Sep 15, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


As usual, you supply no source for your specious comments as your source is fundamentalist xtian websites. You really should learn the facts about biology rather than default to ICR nonsense.



			CB101:  Most mutations harmful?
		


Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57. 
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007). 

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial. 

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996). 

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000). 

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).



What else can I help you with?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 15, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


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



Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems. 

It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun? 

How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 15, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Don’t you find it curious that virtually all of the ID’iot creationer loons you folks prey to seem to congregate at fundamentalist ministries?


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 15, 2020)

Hollie said:


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


There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.


----------



## james bond (Sep 15, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Haha.  Still stuck in the 1980s.  Fisher's theorem was disproved in 2018.

"January 2018: Fisher’s Famous Theorem Has Been “Flipped”

The 2014 edition of Genetic Entropy stated that a publication was in preparation that would disprove the historically pivotal “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection”, developed by Ronald Fisher. This key new paper has finally been published.

Ronald Fisher was one the great scientists of the last century, and his theorem, published in 1930, and was the foundational work that gave rise to neo-Darwinian theory and the field of population genetics. This new paper shows that Fisher’s mathematical formulation and his conclusion were wrong. Furthermore, the new paper corrects Fisher’s work — thus reversing Fisher’s thesis and establishing a new theorem. Fisher had claimed that his theorem was a mathematical proof of evolution — making the continuous increase in fitness a universal and mathematically certain natural law. The corrected theorem shows that just the opposite is true — fitness must very consistently degenerate — making macroevolution impossible. The new paper by Basener and Sanford, is in the Journal of Mathematical Biology (available here).

Fisher described his theorem as “fundamental”, because he believed he had discovered a mathematical proof for Darwinian evolution. He described his theorem as equivalent to a universal natural law — on the same level as the second law of thermodynamics. Fisher’s self-proclaimed new law of nature was that populations will always increase in fitness — without limit, as long as there is any genetic variation in the population. Therefore evolution is like gravity — a simple mathematical certainly. Over the years, a vast number of students of biology have been taught this mantra — that Fisher’s Theorem proves that evolution is a mathematical certainty.

The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change — it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.

In the early 1900s, Darwinian theory was in trouble scientifically. Darwin’s writings were primarily conceptual in nature, containing a great deal of philosophy and a great deal of speculation. Beyond simple observations of nature, Darwin’s books generally lacked genuine science (experimentation, data analysis, the formulation of testable hypotheses). Darwin had no understanding of genetics, and so he had no conception of how traits might be passed from one generation to the next. He only had a very vague notion of what natural selection might actually be acting upon. He simply pictured life as being inherently plastic and malleable, so evolution was inherently fluid and continuous (think Claymation). When Mendel’s genetic discoveries were eventually brought out of the closet, it could be seen that inheritance was largely based upon discrete and stable packets of information. That indicated that life and inheritance were not like Claymation, and that biological change over time was not based upon unlimited plasticity or fluidity. Mendel’s discrete units of information (later called genes), were clearly specific and finite, and so they only enabled specific and limited changes. At that time it was being said: “Mendelism has killed Darwinism”.

Fisher was the first to reconcile the apparent conflict between the ideas of Darwin and the experimental observations of Mendel. Fisher accomplished this by showing mathematically how natural selection could improve fitness by selecting for desirable genetic units (beneficial alleles), and simultaneously selecting against undesirable genetic units (deleterious alleles). He showed that given zero mutations, the more there are good/bad alleles in the population, the more natural selection can improve the fitness of the population. This is the essence of Fisher’s Theorem. This was foundational for neo-Darwinian theory — which now reigns supreme in modern academia.

Remarkably, Fisher’s theorem by itself illustrates a self-limiting process — once all the bad alleles are eliminated, and once all the individuals carry only good alleles, then there is nothing left to select, and so selective progress must stop. The end result is that the population improves slightly and then becomes locked in stasis (no further change). It is astounding that Fisher’s Theorem does not explicitly address this profound problem! Newly arising mutations are not even part of Fisher’s mathematical formulation. Instead, Fisher simply added an informal corollary (which was never proven), which involved extrapolation from his simple proof. He assumed that a continuous flow of new mutations would continuously replenish the population’s genetic variability, thereby allowing continuous and unlimited fitness increase."






						NEW DEVELOPMENTS | -genetic-entropy
					






					www.geneticentropy.org


----------



## Hollie (Sep 15, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Now that’s pretty darn funny. 

There was a reference to something called “contested bones” in your long cut and paste. 

What a surprise. Your cut and paste includes links to charlatans at the most dishonest and crank fundie ministries.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 15, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...




Interesting and informative.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 15, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


More like predictable and ignorant.


----------



## james bond (Sep 15, 2020)

Hollie said:


> Now that’s pretty darn funny.
> 
> There was a reference to something called “contested bones” in your long cut and paste.
> 
> What a surprise. Your cut and paste includes links to charlatans at the most dishonest and crank fundie ministries.



This has nothing to do with creation science.  Ronald Fisher's theorem backed up Darwin after Mendel published his empirical findings.  Darwin's explanation of ToE was just that an explanation or hypothesis.  It grew to become a theory after Fisher's theorem.  You didn't even read nor understand what the article said.  It's from the Genetic Entropy group and they published in Mathematical Biology --  The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations.  I guess this is so mind blowing that their paper is free to view and download.

Furthermore, I keep talking about the period from 2007 - 2011 where evolution came under fire.  I think this was the period that Gregor Mendel's experiments with pea plants were brought up to counter Darwinism -- Evolution: Library: What Darwin Didn't Know: Gregor Mendel and the Mechanism of Heredity.  Darwin, like you, didn't have a clue about genetics.

You can read the history of the birth of genetics here -- Chromosomes, Mutation, and the Birth of Modern Genetics: Thomas Hunt Morgan.

It leads into Ronald Fisher and his theorem (it's on the next page of the website where I learned evolution) -- Random Mutations and Evolutionary Change: Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane, & Sewall Wright


----------



## james bond (Sep 15, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



It's more than that.  The new theorem disproves one of the foundations of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and its basis on Mathematical Biology and Genetics.  

When genetics was discovered,

"*Chromosomes Contain Genetic Material*
Nineteenth century cell biologists discovered that animal and plant cells had a central compartment known as the nucleus. Each nucleus contained a set of   rod-shaped structures, and when a typical cell divided, a new nucleus complete with a new set of rods was created. These rods were named chromosomes for the way they absorbed colored stains. But sperm and eggs contained only half the normal set of chromosomes. When a sperm fertilized an egg, the chromosomes combined to create a full complement.

Scientists realized that the chromosomes stored the information necessary for building an individual, and heredity consisted of the transfer of that information from generation to generation. Each chromosome contained information for many different traits, and scientists dubbed each chromosomal chunk that was responsible for a particular trait a “gene.“

*Rediscovering Mendel*
Dutch botanist Hugo DeVries and several other scientists carried out breeding experiments in the late 1890s and rediscovered Mendel’s three-to-one ratio. But this new generation could offer a clearer interpretation of what was happening in their experiments. We each carry two copies of the same gene, one from each parent, but in many cases only one copy produces a trait while the action of the other is masked. Here was the secret behind Mendel’s three-to-one ratio of smooth and wrinkled peas."

"*Mutated Gene = New Species?*
Perhaps, scientists speculated, evolution took place as genes were altered. DeVries claimed that if a gene changed—if it “mutated”—it would create a new species in a single jump. But no one could say for sure what mutations did until they could be studied up close. That became possible in the laboratory of a Columbia University biologist, Thomas Hunt Morgan (left).

Morgan bred fruit flies by the thousands, and his team tried to create mutant flies with x-rays, acids, and other toxic substances. Finally, in one unaltered lineage of flies, the researchers found a surprise. Every single fly in that line had been born with red eyes, until one day a fly emerged from its pupa with white eyes.  Something had spontaneously changed in the white-eyed fly.

*Mutation Does Not Equal Speciation*
Morgan realized that one of its genes had been altered and it had produced a new kind of eye. Morgan bred the white-eyed fly with a red-eyed fly and got a generation of red-eyed hybrids. And when he bred the hybrids together, some of the grandchildren were white-eyed. Their ratio was three red to one white. Here was a mutation, but one that didn’t fit DeVries’s definition. DeVries thought that mutations created new species, but the fly that had acquired the white-eyed mutation remained a member of the same species. It could still mate with other fruit flies, and its gene could be passed down to later generations in proper Mendelian fashion.

*Genetics Is Born*
The work of scientists such as Morgan established a new science: genetics. It would not be until 1953 that the molecular structure of genes (DNA) would be   discovered, and only later did scientists figure out how DNA’s code is used by cells to build proteins.  But already by the 1920s, many of the paradoxes about genes that tormented previous biologists dissolved.  Genes do not always come in simply two different versions, one dominant and one recessive. Mutations can create many different versions of the same gene (known as alleles).  While a single mutation can sometimes create a drastic change to an organism, such as changing red eyes to white, most mutations cannot. That’s because most traits are based on many different genes working together. Mutating any one of those genes often only produces a subtle change, or none at all."

After DeVries, Ronald Fisher, JBS Haldane, and Sewall Wright came up laid the mathematical biology foundation to support evolution.

"But in the 1920s geneticists began to recognize that natural selection could indeed act on genes. For one thing, it became clear that any given trait was usually the product of many genes rather than a single one.  A mutation to any one of the genes involved could create small changes to the trait rather than some drastic transformation. Just as importantly, several scientists — foremost among them Ronald Fisher (above left), JBS Haldane (above right), and Sewall Wright (below left) — showed how natural selection could operate in a Mendelian world. They carried out breeding experiments like previous        geneticists, but they also did something new: they built sophisticated mathematical models of evolution."

The links are in my post #63.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 15, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Now that’s pretty darn funny.
> ...


Evolution "came under fire"? That's all very melodramatic but such tirades don't reflect reality.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 15, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 11. Now, a quick lesson on the _irreducible complexity of DNA_, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.
> ...


She may just be a paid shill.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 15, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 11. Now, a quick lesson on the _irreducible complexity of DNA_, and you will understand that any alteration, mutation, would destroy its usefulness.
> ...




In my  Item #11 I explained why mutations nearly always result in non-functioning and/or lethal DNA or gene alteration.


I explained it in a way that would be clear to a child able to read simple three-letter words.


Clearly you have not yet reached that level.....


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 15, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Regardless.  The right wing is not moral enough for God to exist or we would only need Ten simple Commandments not the Expense of Government and the Taxes required to run it, for Right Wingers to immorally complain about.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The reality is evolution has been destroyed by the Mathematical Biology and the experiments on mutations that backed up the math.  You have had your time from the 1850s to 2007 or so.  That's a long enough time for a lie to be accepted and tried with the advent of genetics.  Much of the experiments were based on circular reasoning and trying to make the results fit the theory.  However, all that came tumbling down with the disproving of Fisher's theorem and the challenge to evolutionary biology.  Much of Darwin's concepts, i.e. Darwinism was debunked by experiments during 2007 - 2011 timeframe.  Now the mathematical biology foundations have been destroyed.  You should ask yourself what you have left?


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

Indeependent said:


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


Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves.  It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> In my  Item #11 I explained why mutations nearly always result in non-functioning and/or lethal DNA or gene alteration.
> 
> 
> I explained it in a way that would be clear to a child able to read simple three-letter words.
> ...


Yes I have and to prove it, here's a children's story you may like then:
​Once upon a time, there was a family of bacteria that lived together.  They had cell membranes that had a very specific shaped hole that allowed into the cell only food molecules that matched that shape.  One baby bacteria had a mutation in that cell wall that prevented that food from entering.  Many bacteria before it had that mutation grew only very slowly and usually died.  Then one day a poison came into their colony and killed by entering through that same shape in the cell membrane.  All the bacteria were killed except for that poor mutated one.  It thrived in the new environment and all its' offspring had that same, now beneficial, mutation, and they lived happily ever after.​​And that children, is the story of Penicillin.  The moral is that sometimes a mutation is bad until it is good.  The end.​


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


The reality is that your notions of biology are skewed by your hyper-religious fanaticism. 

Religionism has not debunked biological evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



11. Curious how the facts refute your unsupported claims to mutations. 

12. It’s as though you hyper-religious loons just have no clue.

13. Claim CB101:

Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57. 

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007). 

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial. 

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).

Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).

In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996). 

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000). 

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).



			CB101:  Most mutations harmful?


----------



## Confounding (Sep 16, 2020)

midcan5 said:


> Hi PC,  I see you are still beating that same dog.  Poor thing is really dead by now.  You must realize most Americans and especially readers online are not interested in old stuff.  BTW Any positive comments on Trump?  Are you a cult follower too?  Our nation appears to be getting dumber by the minute as so much nonsense comes out of the White House.  I'm glad that some republicans see him as the threat he is to America.  Have a great day, soon you can beat up on Biden/Harris.
> 
> Trump has hurt enough Americans and children. If there is a God I hope he / she is in favor of caging children, breaking up families, and taking healthcare away from his people. What say ye, God?
> 
> ...



I don't think I've ever seen her do anything but cut and paste walls of text on this forum. She'll never have a debate where she can't inundate her opponent with so much BS that they don't even bother.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.

Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > In my  Item #11 I explained why mutations nearly always result in non-functioning and/or lethal DNA or gene alteration.
> ...




Research the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.


"We must therefore believe in evolution or go to the madhouse, but what pre- cisely is it that we are required to believe? “Evolution” can mean anything from the uncontroversial statement that bacteria “evolve” resistance to antibiotics to the grand metaphysical claim that the universe and mankind “evolved” entirely by pur- poseless, mechanical forces. A word that elastic is likely to mislead, by implying that we know as much about the grand claim as we do about the small one. "


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.
> 
> Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.


There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> Research the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.


*Microevolution* happens on a small scale (within a single population), while *macroevolution* happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation.

The proper scientific explanation of the connection was developed by the Chinese (I hope it is not too technical for you): A journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.
> ...




I can short-circuit this easily enough.

 "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.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Yes I have and to prove it, here's a children's story you may like then:
> Once upon a time, there was a family of bacteria that lived together. They had cell membranes that had a very specific shaped hole that allowed into the cell only food molecules that matched that shape. One baby bacteria had a mutation in that cell wall that prevented that food from entering. Many bacteria before it had that mutation grew only very slowly and usually died. Then one day a poison came into their colony and killed by entering through that same shape in the cell membrane. All the bacteria were killed except for that poor mutated one. It thrived in the new environment and all its' offspring had that same, now beneficial, mutation, and they lived happily ever after.And that children, is the story of Penicillin. The moral is that sometimes a mutation is bad until it is good. The end.



What are you smoking?  Haha, what a ridiculous and idiotic fairy tale you believe.  The only thing you know about medicine is illegal drugs that warp your brain.  What bugs the crap out of your evolutionary scientists is that evolutionary biology has been ignored in medicine.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Now, you have to resort to _weak and wrong_ religious opinion to argue when Mathematical Biology has disproved how evolution can happen. It shows your explanations behind microevolution are wrong and that macroevolution cannot possibly happen. What should come out of this is different ideas about natural selection.

You, sir, are relegated to the doo doo pit along with the terms microevolution and macroevolution.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




I can dispose of creationer loons with facts.



			Observed Instances of Speciation
		





			Some More Observed Speciation Events
		





			CB910:  New species
		





			CA520:  "Origin of Species" on speciation.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here. Do we accept the work of relevant science and biology departments of all the teaching and research universities 

Or

do we accept the silly rants of creationer loons?

Decisions, decisions.









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

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




					biology.nd.edu
				




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.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.



Not anymore when microevolution has been destroyed.  We may as well get rid of evolutionary biology.  Thus, natural selection is a fundamental fact of nature.  If modern scientists discard the neo-Darwinian theory nonsense, then we may finally make progress in using natural selection biology to help us understand nature and help humankind.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

Confounding said:


> I don't think I've ever seen her do anything but cut and paste walls of text on this forum. She'll never have a debate where she can't inundate her opponent with so much BS that they don't even bother.



Surely, you meant Hollie .  She's the one wearing...


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.
> ...



How predictable that it is the ID’iot creationers who are the ones who feel most threatened by science and knowledge. It is they who have an interest in reviling science and knowledge because science and knowledge leaves little room for ancient fears and superstitions.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think I've ever seen her do anything but cut and paste walls of text on this forum. She'll never have a debate where she can't inundate her opponent with so much BS that they don't even bother.
> ...



Your emotional / juvenile outbursts diminish you, not me.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You mean you can take off on a tangent?  Logic 101:  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  

I completely understand that you want to avoid speaking of the overwhelming evidence for evolution and instead insist on focusing on your friendly neighborhood straw man.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


That is not in doubt, the only thing in question is Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, or GOP?  (I doubt it's the Russians, Chinese, or GOP, they would do a much better job of disinformation.)


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




A century and a half after Darwin published, with more scientists working today than in all of history combined.....

"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.


Add this to the fact that I showed how mutations do not lead to evolution, but lead to death.


But....you prove a valuable point: the weak-minded can never cast off the indoctrination of government schooling.

As most of your teachers wrote on your report cards: "Works to ability."


Just be happy that you don’t still have that job that required you to wear that white paper hat.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.
> ...


So how does "natural selection biology" operate?  I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


A tangent is tangent but I guess you don't have anything else.

I guess the parable of the bacteria went over your ivy-covered, elitist head.  Let me summarize.  99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good.  It is how bacteria acquire drug resistance.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



It is based on characteristics already existing in DNA.

I realize books are anathema to you, (better look that up) but there is the novel The Big Sky. I read it long ago, but I believe a red-headed child is born and the father cannot accept that his wife was faithful because neither of them had red hair.

Diversity is due to traits already in existence but hidden by other traits.

When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement.

As of this moment, no one is able to prove the origin of the diversity on earth.....and Darwin's theory doesn't fill the bill.
But it is eminently valuable for atheists.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



 " 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good."

Mathematics proves that the remaining number cannot account for evolution.


A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians, though, were not persuaded that the fault was theirs. As one said: _There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged with the current conception of biology_. Schützenberger, M. P. (1967) “Algorithms and the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, ed. P. S. Moorhead and M. M. Kaplan, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, p. 75.
[Found in Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box: The-Biochemical-Challenge-to-Evolution”]


Stephen C. Meyer has more recently broken down the probability along slightly different lines, for a small protein molecule, a precursor to living systems, but to the same conclusion:



"The probability of building a chain of 100 amino acids in which all linkages involve peptide bonds is roughly 1 chance in 1030."



"The probability of attaining at random only L-amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 100 amino acids long is (1/2)100 or again roughly 1 chance in 1030." [only left-handed amino acid arrangements can be tolerated by functioning proteins]



"…*we find that the probability of achieving a functional sequence of amino acids in several functioning proteins at random is still "vanishingly small," roughly 1 chance in 1065 - an astronomically large number - for a protein only one hundred amino acids in length."*



"If one also factors in the probability of attaining proper bonding and optical isomers, the probability of constructing a rather short, functional protein at random becomes so small as to be *effectively zero* (no more than 1 chance in 10125)…" [emphasis mine] 82
Meyer, Stephen C., "Word Games: DNA, Design, & Intelligence", _Touchstone_, July/August 1999, p. 47



"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, *a zero probability of occurrence* (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is* no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations* (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

Hollie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Stop with the 80s postings.  Your source is an extremist and  looney tunes website if there ever was one.

You just do not understand the ramifications of disproving Ronald Fisher's theorem -- evolutionary biology was disproved.  There's a whole series on it on your other looney tunes and biased encyclopedia (cough, cough) source wikipedia.

" At the heart of Fisher’s conception was his famous fundamental theorem of natural selection (Fisher’s Theorem). Fisher’s Theorem, published in his text _The Genetical Theory of Evolution_ (Fisher 1930), showed that given a population with pre-existing genetic variants (i.e., Mendelian alleles) the population’s mean fitness will increase. Not only will mean fitness increase, the rate of increase will be proportional to the genetic variance for fitness within the population at any given time. This constitutes a proof that natural selection leads to increasing fitness in idealized Mendelian genetics, although it is often overlooked that Fisher’s theorem does not consider mutations and without newly arising variants natural selection can only lead to stasis. 

By itself, Fisher’s Theorem seems obvious and of little significance. The impact of the theorem came from the following two points.


(A)                                          
Fisher conceptually linked natural selection with Mendelian genetics, which had not been done up to that time.
(B)                                          
Fisher assumed that, when combined with a constant inflow of new mutations, his theorem guaranteed unbounded increase of any population’s fitness. Therefore in his mind his theorem constituted a mathematical proof of Darwinian evolution.
At the time of Fisher’s work, there were two competing schools of thought about genetics and evolution (Plutynski 2006). The Biometric school viewed genetics as quantitative and  continuous, fully understandable solely by statistical metrics and a vague notion of Darwinian gradualism. The Mendelian school of thought viewed inheritance as the transmission of discrete Mendelian units, hence evolution was thought to progress by discrete steps. In describing Fisher’s goal in his text, Plutynski writes, “His aim was to vindicate Darwinism and demonstrate its compatibility with Mendelism—indeed, its necessity given a Mendelian system of inheritance” (Plutynski 2006). Fisher wanted to show that the established reality of the discrete units of Mendelian inheritance did not undermine Darwinian evolution (as some were arguing), but actually supported it. "

However, Basener and Sanford turned it on its head and destroyed it with their fundamental theorem of natural selection _with mutations_. Fisher never included mutations in his theorem, but just assumed it.









						The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations - Journal of Mathematical Biology
					

The mutation–selection process is the most fundamental mechanism of evolution. In 1935, R. A. Fisher proved his fundamental theorem of natural selection, providing a model in which the rate of change of mean fitness is equal to the genetic variance of a species. Fisher did not include mutations...




					link.springer.com


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?



We just had proof that the theorem of natural selection was false when mutations were factored in.  You are one looney tunes bird and have been smoking too much of the wacky tobacky.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Not surprising you pray at the altar of Disco’tute loons.






__





						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
				




Stephen C. Meyer is a philosopher and one of the hotshots of the Discovery Institute. And like some philosophers and all Discovery Institute people, he likes to make grand claims about scientific fields about which he must be counted as an illiterate. Meyer helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the major hive for the ID creationist movement. Meyer is currently vice president and a senior fellow at CSC, and a director of the Access Research Network. He has been described as “the person who brought ID (intelligent design) to DI (Discovery Institute)”, he contributed to the second edition of Dean Kenyon’s “Of Pandas and People”, wrote (with Ralph Seelke) the ID textbook “Explore Evolution”, was appointed by the Texas Board of Education to be on the committee reviewing Texas’s science curriculum standards, is the primary link to DI sponsor and Taliban theocrat loon Howard Ahmanson, and was partly responsible for the Wedge Strategy, as well as an active speaker and debate panelist.

In 1999, Meyer (with David DeWolf and Mark DeForrest) designed a legal strategy for introducing intelligent design into public schools in the book “Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum.” (I mean, the point of ID is to get creationism and religion into the schools, not to do science). He is perhaps most famous for trying to realize the strategy through helping to introduce ID to the Dover Area School District (more extensively here), and for his ridiculous 2009 book “Signature in the Cell” (which a probably drunk/dementia suffering Thomas Nagel actually praised, flaunting his own ignorance of science). PZ Myers was offered a review copy by Meyer’s assistant Janet Oberembt, but never received it. The book actually makes twelve “predictions” for ID (although they are not predictions in the ordinary scientific sense because they are not derived from any concrete theory, and they all concern testing the theory of evolution, not ID). He also offers a “theory”. The theory is unrelated to the predictions. He derives no predictions from his theory. He offers nothing resembling a coherent justification either, so the book didn’t receive much positive feedback from actual scientists. He has offered some appeals to authority, however (“Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Darwinist”).

In March 2002 he announced the “teach the controversy” strategy aimed at promoting the false idea that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education. Since Meyer knows this is false, he was lying, but dishonesty isn’t exactly a surprising trait in ID advocates. The presentation included a bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "”Darwinian evolution”. When NCSE contacted the authors, none of the authors who responded (the authors of thirty-four of the papers) thought that their research provided evidence against evolution. Meyer also publicly claimed that the “Santorum Amendment” was part of the Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was required to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. Which is demonstrably false, but tells you a lot about the DI creationists.

Of course, he thinks there is active persecution of the purportedly fast-growing number of scientists rejecting evolution in Academia (probably because he cannot find any). He was interviewed about those claims in Expelled.

Diagnosis: One of the staunchest, most influential, most dishonest anti-science advocates in the world. Crackpot and complete hack.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > There will never be proof, would you settle for overwhelming evidence?
> ...



Not surprisingly, your “pwoofs” are mere “... because I say so” pronouncements absent any support.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


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



Why waste bandwidth with debunked 1930’s vintage nonsense?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...







__





						The Probability of Life | Evolution FAQ
					






					evolutionfaq.com
				




Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.

For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> So how does "natural selection biology" operate?  I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?



The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce.  This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.

What does evolution do to change it to favor itself, i.e. circular reasoning?


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



"Published: 07 November 2017"

I already claimed Fisher's theorem was destroyed in 2018.  Why don't you learn to read better?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



I was curious why you were cutting and pasting debunked theories.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

>>She may just be a paid shill.<<



alang1216 said:


> That is not in doubt, the only thing in question is Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, or GOP? (I doubt it's the Russians, Chinese, or GOP, they would do a much better job of disinformation.)



Sheesh.  Another straw man to avoid the truth that of which by the fools.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > So how does "natural selection biology" operate?  I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?
> ...








						Natural selection - Conservapedia
					






					www.conservapedia.com


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


"When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement."

I realize you get your science from old Westerns but this one time you're right.  What you should mention though is that if a mutation save the life of one bacteria in billion, that is the trait that will be passed on to the next generation.

The diversity of life is a fact.  Darwin provided a mechanism for life to achieve that diversity that fits the evidence.  No other theory even comes close.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

Hollie said:


> For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.



Ho hum.  Back to this again.  You're the one desperately trying to bring _creationists and IDers_ into the discussion, so you can post your wacky looney tunes website.

You have no evidence for abiogenesis while Dr. Louis Pasteur and his experiments show only life can create life.

Instead, let's get into your claims.  Can you give us examples of the peptides forming?  Tell us in your own words how the first peptide formed since it's hypothetical instead of actual observation.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> " 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good."
> 
> Mathematics proves that the remaining number cannot account for evolution.


So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> I guess the parable of the bacteria went over your ivy-covered, elitist head. Let me summarize. 99.99% of mutations may be be bad but, if there are changes in the environment, they may be good. It is how bacteria acquire drug resistance.



Nobody bought your fairy tale.  You can't accept the fact that evolutionary biology has been totally ignored by medicine.  Furthermore, what happened to the bad mutation penicillin?  You just admitted the bacteria acquired resistance to it.

I answered your question about natural selection.  Why not answer mine?

The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce.  This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.

Beneficial traits become more beneficial.  Harmful traits become more scarce.  Your bad mutation penicillin example just showed it becoming more scarce -- Penicillin Uses, Side Effects & Allergy Warnings - Drugs.com.  I can't take it because I'm allergic to  amoxicillin .  Isn't this a big problem with evolutionary biology in medicine?


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?



Duh, duh, duh.  You just do not learn.  Natural selection.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > So how does "natural selection biology" operate?  I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?
> ...


What you cut and pasted was correct: 
The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce.  This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.​
Unfortunately you turned it around by adding your own commentary.  As described in your pasting, natural selection is changing the genes of the population.  THE POPULATION IS EVOLVING by your own admission.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> "When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement."
> 
> I realize you get your science from old Westerns but this one time you're right. What you should mention though is that if a mutation save the life of one bacteria in billion, that is the trait that will be passed on to the next generation.
> 
> The diversity of life is a fact. Darwin provided a mechanism for life to achieve that diversity that fits the evidence. No other theory even comes close.



I like Westerns because the people enforce the laws with guns and bullies and scofflaws are put in their place most of the time.

You continue to believe in Darwinism when there is none.  It's only natural selection and if we didn't have the Darwin tangent, then we probably would be better off for it.  Natural selection is the gun which puts bullies and scofflaws in their place most of the time.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> Nobody bought your fairy tale.  You can't accept the fact that evolutionary biology has been totally ignored by medicine.  Furthermore, what happened to the bad mutation penicillin?  You just admitted the bacteria acquired resistance to it.
> 
> I answered your question about natural selection.  Why not answer mine?
> 
> ...


You'll be happy to see I answered your post.  BTW, it was not a fairy tale I told, it is exactly what happens by natural selection.  
Unfortunately you don't understand the subject at all.  Here is a great definition of evolution from YOUR post: "The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations".


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > So how do bacteria acquire drug resistance?
> ...


Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > "When genes, or DNA is altered, the results are almost never an improvement."
> ...


.
You should find yourself a western that explains Darwinism


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



First answer my question what does evolution do to change natural selection from what we agreed upon?

Then in your last paragraph, you attribute to me what Darwinism states.  You are one mixed up bird, probably a turkey.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You too?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


First, your question makes no sense.  Second, if you cut and paste something without quotes, link, or reference, it is assumed to be yours.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




Anyone, even you, can explain Darwin's theory.

No one can prove it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




You said he 'discovered' natural selection.

You are as wrong as always.....it was recognized for four thousand years of breeding.

. 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




But.....on the bright side.....no one expects  you to know anything.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


can you prove ANY other theory?  creationism?  god?  Trump is not guilty of sexual assault?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




Why would I?

The argument you just lost was my aim....mission accomplished.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


First 'breeding' is not natural.  Darwin discovered natural selection like Columbus discovered America.  Both always existed but were not known to the West.

Darwin was not infallible, he got lots of stuff wrong.  Apparently it was the same with Agassiz.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> The argument you just lost was my aim....mission accomplished.


Quoting Bush now?  Very appropriate.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




"First 'breeding' is not natural."


For the sake of humanity, we can only hope that you have taken that personally.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I do take pleasure in watching you twist in the wind.  It's one of my weaknesses I'm afraid.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




And one more dunce proving my rule #1:

Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> You should find yourself a western that explains Darwinism



.  Now, that's pretty clever.  It would have to be  a science fiction Western.  How about Westworld?



alang1216 said:


> I always thought it was somehow connected to microevolution?



This goes back to how Darwin explained ToE.  Darwin did not create ToE, but was able to explain it.  You couldn't answer my question, so the answer is Darwin added long time, descent with modification, common ancestor, and the tree of life to natural selection.  This backs up my evaluation that you don't know what you are talking about.  In fact, we argued about long time.  You couldn't even come up with that.



alang1216 said:


> Natural selection was Darwin's discovery.



I complimented you for your western quip, but now you're just flat out wrong. No wonder you attribute to me what Darwinism claimed.  This is the whole crux of the disproving Ronald Fisher's theorem on Mathematical Biology.  Natural selection was what was first observed by both Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.  We would've came up with it eventually if we lived in that time and somehow had an internet forum like this.  However, with different conclusions.  You have to remember that before that was a battle between the accepted science of creation vs uniformitarianism or the rising science of atheism.

Again, you agreed that natural selection was:  

The basics of natural selection is that heritable traits which are beneficial will become more numerous in successive generations, while heritable traits which are harmful will tend to become scarce.  This general principle applies to any system of individuals and living organisms which reproduce.

Beneficial traits become more beneficial.  Harmful traits become more scarce.   

The above is based on observation.  Can't we just use that to explain what came afterward in science, that of genetics?


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> can you prove ANY other theory? creationism? god? Trump is not guilty of sexual assault?



You got the proof against Fisher's theorem.  The evidence for creationism is that we are here.  We have Kalam's Cosmological argument and the best theory is God.  Trump is innocent until proven guilty unlike there are plenty of photos of Biden, sexual assault, and pedophilia.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> First 'breeding' is not natural. Darwin discovered natural selection like Columbus discovered America. Both always existed but were not known to the West.
> 
> Darwin was not infallible, he got lots of stuff wrong. Apparently it was the same with Agassiz.



Sexual breeding didn't happen naturally.  God created man and woman and commanded them to fill the world.  Natural selection cannot explain sexual reproduction.  Natural selection can only explain asymmetric reproduction.  We see science and religion are two sides of the same coin.

Let's just eliminate Darwin. He was wrong about everything.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



It’s predictable that those limited by religionism would use references to people from 150 years ago. 

Being scientifically illiterate, you wouldn’t have been aware that science has advanced a lot in the last 150 years.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > First 'breeding' is not natural. Darwin discovered natural selection like Columbus discovered America. Both always existed but were not known to the West.
> ...


Not surprisingly, your religious fundamentalism would cause you to reference super-magical gods as “creators” of man and woman. That’s nothing more than myth and legend. 

On the other hand, principles related to biological systems established by Charles Darwin have been confirmed by methods consistent with the scientific method.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> Beneficial traits become more beneficial.  Harmful traits become more scarce.
> 
> The above is based on observation.  Can't we just use that to explain what came afterward in science, that of genetics?


Yes we can and we do.  It is called the Theory of Evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.
> ...



You get infuriated when your ID’iot creationer rants are exposed as fraud. I should remind you that you are posting in a public forum and you should expect that posting ID’iot creationer propaganda will be challenged. 

If you had ever studied biology, you would have learned that biological evolution does not address abiogenesis. 

Your nonsense claim about Pasteur is a nonsense claim typical of the Harun Yahya / ICR groupies. 

Claim CB000:



			CB000:  Law of Biogenesis
		


Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.
Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.
Response:

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > can you prove ANY other theory? creationism? god? Trump is not guilty of sexual assault?
> ...


The fact we are here in no way points to creationism or evolution.  It could have been aliens.

Kalam's Cosmological argument only points to a creator, there is no link to the God of the Bible.

Has Biden been proven guilty of sexual assault, or pedophilia?


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > First 'breeding' is not natural. Darwin discovered natural selection like Columbus discovered America. Both always existed but were not known to the West.
> ...


It was selective breeding I was talking about.  Sorry, but the evolution of sexual reproduction was natural.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

Hollie said:


> It’s predictable that those limited by religionism would use references to people from 150 years ago.
> 
> Being scientifically illiterate, you wouldn’t have been aware that science has advanced a lot in the last 150 years.



We discussed the last 150 years with James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin in the past.  Today, it has been Basener and Sanford disproving Ronald Fisher's theorem with their paper on "Fundamental Theoren of Natural Selection with Mutations."  They added mutations which is the fundamental component necessary for neo-Darwinism and genetics.  Instead, you just kept repeating your tired mantra from the 1980s.  I don't think you know enough to keep up with the OP nor the discussion I was making.



Hollie said:


> Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.
> Source:



You're the one who brought up peptides, but would not explain it in your own words.

OTOH, what Pasteur demonstrated still holds with spontaneous generation and it's neo-Darwinism counterpart of abiogenesis.  Even alang1216 agreed that biogenesis happens.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It’s predictable that those limited by religionism would use references to people from 150 years ago.
> ...


With your bias toward neo-religionism, you seem to have missed whatever point you were trying to make. 

Your insistence on the nonsensical description of Pasteur's experiment per the Watchtower Bible and Tract Cult is yours alone,


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> The fact we are here in no way points to creationism or evolution. It could have been aliens.
> 
> Kalam's Cosmological argument only points to a creator, there is no link to the God of the Bible.
> 
> Has Biden been proven guilty of sexual assault, or pedophilia?



In the near past, we already discussed the evidence that the Bible was discovered and that it was written by different peoples from different walks of life over the years.  I also have said many times that Satan wrote the Antibible of evolution.  All of the main books and articles in that were done by different atheist scientists over the past 170 years.  Today, I discussed Ronald Fisher's contributions.  In the past, I've discussed the contradictions in the Antibible contradict everything what the God of the Bible said.  Thus, it is no coincidence that two are related.  How else do you explain the perfect match?  Thus, Kalam's Cosmological Argument is for the God of the Bible.  Not Satan nor any other gods of another bible.

While I am tempted to post Biden's photo, I won't because that is for the Politics forum.


----------



## james bond (Sep 16, 2020)

alang1216 said:


> It was selective breeding I was talking about. Sorry, but the evolution of sexual reproduction was natural.



I seem to remember you discussing it.  Also, Hollie posted her crap from her atheist website on it.  Let me review what _you_ said. Sorry, I couldn't find it. Can you repeat?

ETA:  Selective breeders know that hybrids cannot reproduce.  They also know that there is a limit to what improvements can be made.  The plants or animals become in stasis.  Is that what you said?

How can evolution of sexual reproduction be natural?  We had asymmetrical reproduction which is observable, but there is no way for it to become sexual reproduction.



alang1216 said:


> You assume life began from DNA. You have it backwards DNA began from life.



I know I am taking out of context, but you sound awful confused.  This is what creationists claim.



alang1216 said:


> I'm chalk up that non-answer in the "Is not" category.



I get this from you a lot to my questions.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact we are here in no way points to creationism or evolution. It could have been aliens.
> ...


Do you realize that you represent yourself as an utterly unhinged conspiracy theorist with your diatribes about satans and their book authorship?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 16, 2020)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > It was selective breeding I was talking about. Sorry, but the evolution of sexual reproduction was natural.
> ...


What ''crap'' are you on about regarding ''atheist website''?


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 18, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



No, over billions of years, all possible mutations can and will occur, making the unlikely to become an absolute certainty after enough time.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 21, 2020)

james bond said:


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


I agree to disagree.  The English proved microevolution with the peppered moth.  If microevolution can happen, so must macroevolution.   Are you on the Right Wing?


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 21, 2020)

Rigby5 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I agree.  Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.


----------



## james bond (Sep 21, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> I agree to disagree. The English proved microevolution with the peppered moth. If microevolution can happen, so must macroevolution. Are you on the Right Wing?



Haha.  Just how did the British prove microevolution with the peppered moth?  Both light and dark moths existed during the time.



danielpalos said:


> I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.



It difficult to picture what happens in millions of years.  There are these so-called changes we can document and place with certain fossil layers, but we don't see the changes of macroevolution which are two -- humans from chimps and birds from dinosaurs.  Both have been debunked.  For example, no chimps, apes, or monkeys walk bipedal.  Even the bear can walk bipedal more than the monkeys.  As for microevolution changes by natural selection, I would say they have been misrepresented with descent from common ancestor and tree of life.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 21, 2020)

james bond said:


> Haha.  Just how did the British prove microevolution with the peppered moth?  Both light and dark moths existed during the time.
> 
> humans from chimps and birds from dinosaurs.   Both have been debunked.


Light and dark moths are exactly what evolution would predict.  Why would God create both light AND dark moths?  He couldn't make up his mind?

Only you claim humans came from chimps, evolution does not.  Birds did come from dinosaurs and we have plenty of evidence to support it.  IT HAS NOT BEEN DEBUNKED.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 21, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > I agree to disagree. The English proved microevolution with the peppered moth. If microevolution can happen, so must macroevolution. Are you on the Right Wing?
> ...


I had to look it up since it really has been that long since biology class.   

The *evolution of the peppered moth* is an evolutionary instance of directional colour change in the moth population as a consequence of air pollution during the Industrial Revolution. The frequency of dark-coloured moths increased at that time, an example of industrial melanism. Later, when pollution was reduced, the light-coloured form again predominated. Industrial melanism in the peppered moth was an early test of Charles Darwin's natural selection in action, and remains as a classic example in the teaching of evolution.[1][2] In 1978 Sewall Wright described it as "the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed."[3][4]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

I am not sure what you mean by, debunked.  Homo sapiens sapiens are the sole surviving species in the Homo genus.  

The informal taxonomic rank of race is variously considered equivalent or subordinate to the rank of subspecies, and the division of anatomically modern humans (_H. sapiens_) into subspecies is closely tied to the recognition of major racial groupings based on human genetic variation.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_taxonomy#Subspecies


----------



## james bond (Sep 21, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.





danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



The light and dark gray peppered moth did not evolve.  Both existed before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution.  The air pollution really didn't have anything to do with it as the population ratios were uneven in other areas surrounding cities with a lots of pollution.  The data of pollution of areas surrounding cities was cherry picked to fit the theory.  Furthermore, there was a big controversy of how the experiment was done to show evolution and industrial melanism.  The man who did it was first praised and became famous in high school and college textbooks using it as the scientific method for microevolution.  I remembered seeing the moths on the light and dark tree barks and buying into it.  However, later the photos were revealed to be dead moths and were glued on.  The guy who became famous committed suicide as his experiments were panned for errors and later he did not get into the Royal Society.  I guess becoming famous quickly and then being criticized harshly over time had negative effects.

++++++++

It's some of the homo genus descent from common ancestors that were debunked.  A few turned out to be outright frauds.  The homo sapiens sapiens skeletons are controversial in that it doesn't show common descent over time.  They're all skeletons of different modern humans, e.g. homo neanderthalensis and homo sapiens sapiens.  The neanderthals should be depicted as much larger and stronger than homo sapiens.







I remember seeing the above in biology class.






Later I discovered some of the transitional fossils, i.e. skeletons, were frauds.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 21, 2020)

Evolution in the Animal Kingdom would suggest otherwise for more easily spotted, spotted moths from a predator perspective.  Might does make right in the Animal Kingdom.  

And, some fraud doesn't mean or imply all is fraud.  

Take right wing alleged Theists who complain about Taxes; it should only require Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of secular and temporal Government on Earth.  Simply having taxes and right wingers immorally complaining about taxes instead of obeying Commandments from God, is plenty of proof regarding right wing morality.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 21, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.
> ...


Of course, you're missing the point.  Generations of peppered moths in Britain gradually darkened in response to the air pollution in the industrialized parts of the country. Researchers showed that the dark form of the moth predominated because their dark color provided camouflage as an adaptation to lessen predation by birds. 

A prediction of evolutionary biology is that organisms will adapt to their environment. While you may believe that the gods intervened and gradually caused the darkening of moth populations, a basic precept of biological evolution is that populations evolve. The peppered moth is just one more confirmation of Darwinian Theory. 

1. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do. 

2. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer. 

3. This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness. 

4. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable. 

5. As natural selection continues to act on the genes (both old and new) populations can eventually reach a point where all of the old genes for a certain trait have been replaced by the newly evolved genes. 

6. Physical traits therefore have no theoretical limit to the direction or extent of evolution they can experience.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 21, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. Millions of years of microevolution can seem like a form of intelligent design in macroevolution.
> ...



The errors of both Piltdown and Peking man were discovered and corrected by scientists. 

Two examples hardly makes a case for the magic and supernaturalism of your asserted gods. 

Maybe you lecture everyone on the shroud of Turin or people seeing the Jesus in their oatmeal cereal.


----------



## james bond (Sep 21, 2020)

Hollie said:


> Generations of peppered moths in Britain gradually darkened in response to the air pollution in the industrialized parts of the country. Researchers showed that the dark form of the moth predominated because their dark color provided camouflage as an adaptation to lessen predation by birds.



And they changed themselves back to light color.  All of this is natural selection, but not microevolution.  With micro, there would have to be some genetic change in the population which didn't happen.  Already, there were both types of moths, but the majority was whitish or light grey and speckled with black. 

What was interesting was how since its discovery how evolutionists made claims of microevolution happened:

"The basic explanation of this theory state the following:

The peppered moth prior to the Industrial Revolution was well-camouflaged against a similarly-colored background of lichen growing on tree trunks.
The melanistic black form - when resting against the same tree trunks - was easily picked-off by birds, and thus rare.
The depositing of soot blackened the trees, allowing the black form to be camouflaged, and the normal form to be predated on by birds.
Strict regulations enforced pollution controls in the later-19th century, gradually restoring the coloration of the trees, allowing normal lichen growth, and enabling the normal moths their previous advantage at camouflage versus the black form.
The above is what evolution researcher  H.B. Kettlewell formulated.  However, it was found that birds weren't the moth's main natural predator nor does it rest on tree trunks and was camouflaged by its light color.  Bats are the peppered moths top natural predator.  The peppered moth fly at night like all moths (?) and rests in the daytime high atop trees and under its leaves.  The change to dark color had happened due on its own and not because of the environment.  There were already light and dark colored moth and light and dark color genes for them.  The air pollution just caused the moth ratios to change, but not like Kettlewell and the other evolutionists predicted.  This shows your #1 - 6 were wrong.


----------



## james bond (Sep 21, 2020)

Hollie said:


> The errors of both Piltdown and Peking man were discovered and corrected by scientists.



That is an understatement.  The Piltdown Man fooled an entire generation of people.  People still believe that what are ape fossils are a hybrid ape-human fossil.  Lucy was a mixture of animals fossils and still used.  I think my chart shows all of the transitional fossils were fake.  Thus, there were no real transitional fossils for homo genus.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> And they changed themselves back to light color. All of this is natural selection, but not microevolution.



ID’iot creationers, not having a science vocabulary, do have problems with terms and definitions. 

The peppered moths didn’t decide to “change themselves back to light color”. The population responded to changes in the environment. Consistent with item 2 from my earlier post:

2. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer. 



			Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
		


There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."


----------



## Hollie (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The errors of both Piltdown and Peking man were discovered and corrected by scientists.
> ...



Piltdown Man was an error corrected by scientists. 

Your chart is an unsourced, unattributed but and paste for obvious reasons. 










						Dmanisi fossils -- more transitional than ever
					






					pandasthumb.org
				




The site of Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia has produced four superb hominid skulls ranging in size from 600 cm3 to 780 cm3. These sizes range from the lower end of Homo erectus downwards into the Homo habilis range. The fossils contain a mixture of anatomical features from erectus and habilis. They could arguably be considered to belong either to primitive H. erectus (or H. ergaster), or to a new species, Homo georgicus. Vekua et al 2002 concluded:

The Dmanisi hominids are among the most primitive individuals so far attributed to H. erectus or to any species that is indisputably Homo, and it can be argued that this population is closely related to Homo habilis (sensu stricto) as known from Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania, Koobi Fora in northern Kenya, and possibly Hadar in Ethiopia.

These skulls are intermediate in both anatomy and size between Homo erectus and H. habilis, and as a result are exceedingly difficult for creationists to classify. Creationists therefore either ignored them (the usual reaction), or were forced into the absurdity of claiming that the biggest skull is human but the smallest two are apes (Lubenow 2004), or the almost equally implausible suggestion that all of them are human (Line 2005).

In 2007, further light was thrown on the Dmanisi hominids with the announcement that a substantial number of bones from below the skull had been discovered (Lordkipanidze et al 2007). These included a right femur, tibia and kneecap (the most complete known lower limb of early Homo); an ankle bone, part of a shoulder blade, three collar bones, three upper arm bones, five vertebrae, and a few other small bones. Some of these bones were associated with some of the previously discovered skulls.

Analysis of the bones shows that the Dmanisi hominids definitely walked bipedally and upright. However, the bones show a number of differences from modern humans and have some features associated with Homo habilis. The upper body differences lead the authors to suggest, with some caution, that “the Dmanisi hominins would have had a more australopith-like than human-like upper limb morphology”.


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2020)

Hollie said:


> The peppered moths didn’t decide to “change themselves back to light color”. The population responded to changes in the environment. Consistent with item 2 from my earlier post:



This is quote mining and taking things stated out of context.  Why don't you address my point?

"All of this is natural selection, but not microevolution.  With micro, there would have to be some genetic change in the population which didn't happen.  Already, there were both types of moths, but the majority was whitish or light grey and speckled with black."

The dictionary backs this up.

"*from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.*


 
noun   Small-scale evolution consisting of genetic changes occurring usually within a single species and over a shorter period of time than in macroevolution."

All you are doing is using "fitness" to fit what happened to your microevolution theory.  Why don't you explain your statements using allele instead?


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



How does your link admit fraud and fooling an entire generation of people?  It doesn't even refer to PM.  You're just making excuses to protect your fairy tale beliefs in evolution.  Otherwise, explain yourself using:

"The first solid evidence regarding the identity of the perpetrator emerged in 1996, two decades after a trunk marked with the initials M.A.C.H. had been discovered in storage at the British Museum. Upon analyzing bones found in the trunk, the British paleontologists Brian Gardiner and Andrew Currant found that they had been stained in the exact same way as the Piltdown fossils. The trunk apparently had belonged to Martin A.C. Hinton, who became keeper of zoology at the British Museum in 1936. Hinton, who in 1912 was working as a volunteer at the museum, may have treated and planted the Piltdown bones as a hoax in order to ensnare and embarrass Woodward, who had rebuffed Hinton’s request for a weekly wage. Hinton presumably used the bones in the steamer trunk for practice before treating the bones used in the actual hoax.

A second study, released in 2016, appeared to shift the responsibility for the hoax to Dawson. A reexamination of the Piltdown remains, which included spectroscopy and DNA analysis, strongly suggested that the fabricated remains were made by combining the bones of a single orangutan and no fewer than two human specimens. The remains from both sites showed similar patterns of chemical staining, gravel packed into spaces both between and within the bones, bone abrasion from filing, and the use of a cementing material reminiscent of dental putty to bind various bone fragments together—all of which were likely the work of one person. Although other parties may have been involved at various stages of the ruse, the study implicated Dawson as the common element at all of the important points of the story. He discovered the fossil remains at both sites and first brought attention to them by delivering them to Woodward. Other fossils were not discovered at the first site after Dawson’s passing, and he failed to reveal the exact location of the second site before his death. In addition, Dawson’s knowledge of archaeology and geology could have given him access to the skills with which to disguise the remains, and his desire for recognition by the scientific community, as evidenced by his ambition to become a fellow of the Royal Society, could have been Dawson’s purpose for creating the hoax."









						Piltdown man | Discovery, Fossils, & Facts
					

Piltdown man,  (Eoanthropus dawsoni), also called Dawson’s dawn man,  proposed species of extinct hominin (member of the human lineage) whose fossil remains, discovered in England in 1910–12, were later proved to be fraudulent. Piltdown man, whose fossils were sufficiently convincing to generate...



					www.britannica.com
				




My, my.  Charles Dawson was another British fellow who wanted to go down in history as a member of the Royal Society.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The peppered moths didn’t decide to “change themselves back to light color”. The population responded to changes in the environment. Consistent with item 2 from my earlier post:
> ...



It seems you’re angry that your unsupported comment was refuted. Using your comment and addressing its falsehoods is what occurred.

You don’t understand that evolution is described by the process of natural selection. Fitness for survival was the process that gave an advantage to darker colored pepper moth. That process of natural selection was just one example of biological evolution.

Why don’t you refute this example of evolution with some counter evidence that describes how the gods intervened and hand-painted individual moths as a way to play a cruel joke on ID’iot creationers.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.

So how about that shroud of Turin disaster. Have the religious institutions ever admitted that fraud?

How long did the Catholic Church manage to run its child abuse syndicate? That went on for decades, right?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Your emotional outbursts are an embarrassment.

Why not address a hoax that the hyper-religious still perpetuate?



			Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
		


For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.

The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, and carvings. The largest number of "man tracks" are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, made by bipedal dinosaurs that sometimes impressed their metatarsi (heels and soles) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-backflow or secondary infilling, a somewhat human shape often results. Other alleged "man tracks" including purely erosional features (often selectively highlighted to encourage human shapes), indistinct marks of undertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved tracks (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock).

A few individuals such as Carl Baugh, Don Patton, and Ian Juby, continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in Mesozoic or Paleozoic from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups. When examined thoroughly and carefully, the Paluxy tracks not only provide no positive evidence for young-earth creationism, but are found to be among many other lines of geologic evidence which indicate that the earth has had a long and complex history.


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2020)

Hollie said:


> You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.



No, I corrected and pointed out your obfuscation and whiny, poor excuse so you wouldn't have to tuck you tail between your legs and slink away for believing in the fairy tales of evolution.



Hollie said:


> So how about that shroud of Turin disaster. Have the religious institutions ever admitted that fraud?





Hollie said:


> How long did the Catholic Church manage to run its child abuse syndicate? That went on for decades, right?



How does that relate to S&T haha?  Boy you must be p*ssed because of the peppered moth fiasco.



Hollie said:


> For many years claims were made by strict, "young-earth" creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside fossilized dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been abandoned even by most creationists.



There are plenty of evidence for dinosaurs and humans living together, but you cannot accept it because of your belief in evolution.  Yet, there is no evidence for aliens and humans co-existing nor aliens living in another part of the universe.

I have read that paleontologists have just scratched the surface in terms of dinosaur fossils.  They found soft tissue inside them that shows they were more recent than millions of years old.

Now, how have the "man track" claims not have stood up to close scientific scrutiny?

ETA:  One of the things I learned about the Paluxy river is that the dinosaur tracks follow the river.  Do you agree?  If they follow the river, then the tracks aren't millions of years old as the evolutionists claim.  The claim the rocks at Paluxy are 111 million years old to "fit" with the dinosaur tracks.  The Paluxy River has only been around a few thousand years.  No river can last for millions of years.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.
> ...


Geologists not Paleontologists assert our planet is several billion years old.  Plenty of time for macroevolution to happen through various forms of microevolution, along with any catastrophic events that have also occurred during that time.  Oil is one example of macroevolutionary change due to climate change or catastrophe.  Why do we not still have those animals now that were once prevalent in pre-history?  Were they not able to adapt via genetic change?  Why were others able to do so and are with us now, or if evolution does not happen, how can you explain their current existence?

_Crude oil, or petroleum, and its refined components, collectively termed petrochemicals, are crucial resources in the modern economy. Crude oil originates from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae, which geochemical processes convert into oil.[8]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_

Are you trying to claim that microevolution does not happen?

*Evolution*_ is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_

We no longer have the same environmental factors that were once prevalent in antiquity.  Our change in diet has let to forms of microevolution and to taller persons who used to be shorter, before their change in diet; a healthier diet could be causing that change.

_For most people, contemporary buildings do not prompt similar claustrophobic concerns. The reason for this difference, as many people have correctly guessed, is that modern humans are taller than those from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In fact, over the last 150 years the average height of people in industrialized nations has increased approximately 10 centimeters (about four inches).

Why this relatively sudden growth? Are we evolving to greater heights, vertically speaking? Before answering these questions, we need to remember that evolution requires two things: variation in physical and/or behavioral traits among the individuals in a population; and a way of selecting some of those traits as adaptations, or advantages to reproduction.








						Why are we getting taller as a species?
					

Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our understanding of the world and shape our lives.




					www.scientificamerican.com
				



_


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Are you trying to claim that microevolution does not happen?



I think you are generalizing and pointing out in your statements that everyone thinks like you and believes what you do by your statements.

I think I demonstrated that the one the highlights of evolution in our high school and college textbooks -- the peppered moth -- was not true.  No one can claim that HB Kettlewell's presuppositions or hypotheses he was trying to show were valid.

So, before we go on to whatever you are trying to show with your new topic (can you state in one or two sentences what you want to discuss or bringing up?), can we agree that microevolution did not happen with the peppered moth which is what you brought up?  It shows you were wrong.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Are you trying to claim that microevolution does not happen?
> ...


I agree to disagree with your assessment.  The micro-evolution found in natural selection must have had some effect.  Otherwise, the peppered moth should have gone the way of the dinosaur by not being able to adapt and being predated into extinction.  Are you trying to claim that the species we have now did not evolve through forms of microevolution, and that they existed on our planet since prehistory?

You would also need to claim that species that went extinct had no microevolutionary effect on species that were better able to adapt to the environment vacated by the extinct species.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.
> ...


This is just another of your emotional outbursts.

There is no evidence for humans and dinosaurs living together. Outside of the the silly ID’iot creationer pathology, there is no evidence offered. Your “::: because I say so” comment offers nothing that anyone outside of a Christian madrassah would accept.

I have no belief in evolution. When data supports the theory and the theory makes testable predictions, the evidence does not require belief.

You make the mistake of being a slave to ID’iot creationer dogma in regard to the creationer fraud they tried to perpetrate with the Paluxy River footprints.

ID’iot creationer charlatans such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton are well known frauds pressing an agenda. Provide the peer reviewed data that Baugh and Patton presented to any science journal. Obviously you can’t because ID’iot creationer charlatans do no research.


*Claim CC101:*
Human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in Cretaceous rocks of the Paluxy Riverbed near Glen Rose, Texas.

*Source:*
Morris, Henry M., 1974. _Scientific Creationism_, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 122.





__





						CC101:  Paluxy River footprints
					





					www.talkorigins.org
				



*Response:*

The alleged human footprints involve a number of misidentified and spurious phenomena.
Most supposed "man tracks" in the riverbed are forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks-- made by dinosaurs that at times impressed their metatarsi (soles and heels) as they walked. When the digit impressions of such tracks are subdued by mud-collapse, erosion, infilling, or a combination of factors, the remaining metatarsal portions often superficially resemble human footprints. However, when well cleaned such tracks show definite indications of tridactyl, dinosaurian digit patterns (Kuban, 1986a, 1986b; Hastings, 1987).
Some of the reputed human prints are erosional features or other natural irregularities. They do not show clear human features without selective highlighting, nor occur in natural striding sequences (Cole _et al_, 1985).
A smaller number of alleged "giant man tracks" are carvings on loose blocks of rock (Godfrey, 1985; Kuban and Wilkerson, 1989).

Creationists often failed to exercise scientific rigor and due caution in their early Paluxy field work and promotions. Subseqwuently many also mischaracterized or minimized the mainstream work and alalyses which prompted creationist reevaluations of the evidence (Schadewald, 1986; Kuban, 1986c). However, most no longer use the Paluxy tracks among their arguments, and major creationist organizations such as ICR and AIG have advised that the Paluxy tracks not be cited as evidence against evolution. Continuing "man track" claims by a few individuals such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton have not stood up to close scrutiny (Kuban, 1989).


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 22, 2020)

Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> The micro-evolution found in natural selection must have had some effect.



That's what I asked you.  Where is the microevolution?  The alleles for color were already present for both light and dark PMs.  Also, Kittlewell was wrong with his hypotheses.  That adds up to evolutionists got zilch.



danielpalos said:


> Otherwise, the peppered moth should have gone the way of the dinosaur by not being able to adapt and being predated into extinction. Are you trying to claim that the species we have now did not evolve through forms of microevolution, and that they existed on our planet since prehistory?



Haha.  Good one.  You mean the peppered moth would be made extinct by asteroid?


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Did I disagree that the human and dinosaur footprints have been found?  No need to refer to your biased talk origins.  

What I said was the many of the dinosaur tracks follow the Paluxy River.  It means the river was already there before the dinos walked in it.  The evos have said these tracks and its sediment layers are 111 M years old.  They didn't consider the tracks follow the river.  However, the thin sediment layers of the river do not show the river is that old.  It's not even listed in _your_ wikipedia -- List of rivers by age - Wikipedia. Thus, can I state the Earth is thousands of years old than millions haha? Nah, it means the evos have a contradiction on their hands.

P.S.  Are you going to change wikipedia to add Paluxy River as 111 million years old now haha?


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.



Link?  I know something about dog breeding and I think you're the one who brought it up before.  Where is the microevolution?


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > I agree to disagree. The English proved microevolution with the peppered moth. If microevolution can happen, so must macroevolution. Are you on the Right Wing?
> ...



Incorrect.

No one ever said or believes that humans came from chimps, apes, or any monkey that exists now.
Humans came from the same primates that chimps, apes, and monkeys came from.
Bipedal walking is something a species gets good at when there are no local trees to provide a better alternative to bipedal walking.
There were several bipedal primates before humans.
And there are other primates that walk bipedal now, such as  gibbons and indriids.

As for birds from dinosaurs, birds are dinosaurs, so I do  not know what you mean?
Lots of dinosaurs had feathers, and many could fly.
So birds did not come from dinosaurs, but are dinosaurs, and for some reason did not go extinct.
Likely it was their better egg protection in elevated nests.

Microevolution can not have been misinterpreted because they show a continual tree that leads back so far it has to be considered macoevolution.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.
> ...



Dog breeding is just hybrids of existing DNA and is not evolution of any kind.
It takes mutations for evolution, and that can't happen to dogs in terms of human observation.
It takes millions of years.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You inadvertently confirmed that scientists discovered Piltdown Man was a misrepresentation and corrected the error.
> ...



Wrong.
Tracks do NOT have to follow a river.
A river can exist, disappear for millions of years, and a new river can replace it at the same location.
And yes, rivers can last for millions of years.
The Amazon River for example, is 12 million years old.


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2020)

Rigby5 said:


> No one ever said or believes that humans came from chimps, apes, or any monkey that exists now.
> Humans came from the same primates that chimps, apes, and monkeys came from.
> Bipedal walking is something a species gets good at when there are no local trees to provide a better alternative to bipedal walking.
> There were several bipedal primates before humans.
> And there are other primates that walk bipedal now, such as gibbons and indriids.



No, Jonathan Wells has said the creation paleontologists have studied the fossils of plants and animals in the same layer as dinosaur fossils and they are the same creatures that exist today.  I even presented a list of fossils that were presented over the years by evolutionists and they turned out to be misrepresentations, frauds, and fakes.  It clearly is a case of evolutionists making an argument up like you are to back evolution.

Here is your claim:






Instead, we get this:






and





Ernst Haeckel -- Evolution frauds

Again, when I ask for evidence of macroevolution and those previous bipedal primates or evidence of microevolution and small changes, I get misrepresentations, frauds, and fakes.


----------



## james bond (Sep 22, 2020)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Tracks do NOT have to follow a river.
> A river can exist, disappear for millions of years, and a new river can replace it at the same location.
> And yes, rivers can last for millions of years.
> The Amazon River for example, is 12 million years old.



Tracks do not have to follow the river, but the majority of these tracks follow the Paluxy River.  It shows the river was there before or at the same time as the dinosaurs and the great beasts were following the river.  Sure, there is a minority of dino tracks crossing the river or at angle, but the majority follow the flow of the river.  Certainly, this is a contradiction for the evolutionists.

>>A river can exist, disappear for millions of years, and a new river can replace it at the same location.
And yes, rivers can last for millions of years.<<

Did you just make that up haha?  Show that for the Paluxy.  It was the evolutionists that said the tracks were 111 million years old.  However, they didn't realize most of the tracks followed the river.  Thus, they are caught in a contradiction as the physical evidence of the river, light sedimentary layer buildup, show that it is thousands of years old.

I provided a list of the oldest rivers from wikipedia which has bias towards evolution and no Paluxy river -- List of rivers by age - Wikipedia.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > No one ever said or believes that humans came from chimps, apes, or any monkey that exists now.
> ...



Totally false.
We can date the rock dinosaur fossils are found in and they are over 100 million years old.
At which time ALL the plants and animals  are entirely different.
None are the same.
Which proves evolution, because modern plants and animals did not exist then.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 22, 2020)

james bond said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong.
> ...



Humans might follow a river because they may need it for helping to navigate, especially is one does not have a map.
But dinosaurs would NEVER follow a river.
They would not be trying to get somewhere and would not be using the river to navigate.

Rivers also exist based on elevations, and if there has been no massive tectonic shifts in elevation, then the conditions that cause a river do not ever have to go away.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


You are apparently utterly confused. The tracks found in the Paluxy River are weathered dinosaur tracks. 

The planet is billions of years old, not mere thousands. The planet is globular in shape, not flat. You may not take issue with your ID'iot creationer ministries taking advantage of your fears and superstitions but facts are important.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > No one ever said or believes that humans came from chimps, apes, or any monkey that exists now.
> ...



It's important to note that ID'iot creationers do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals.

Collecting pictures from ID'iot creationer websites is really a meaningless exercise. It represents only that you have cut and pasted a collection of pictures.

Using the charlatan Jonathan Wells as a source for cutting and pasting pictures is simply perpetrating a fraud.






						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
				



We have us another major loon on our hands for this entry, namely the infamous John Corrigan “Jonathan” Wells.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The micro-evolution found in natural selection must have had some effect.
> ...


The change from light to dark and back again; how do you explain it but for the microevolution of natural selection?  There should have been no changes otherwise.  And, it was Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution.  Smaller changes would lead to bigger changes that affect the genome after enough time. 

The soot problem was a catastrophic event for the peppered moth.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.
> ...


How do we get different breeds without micro-evolution?


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

Rigby5 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Thanks, I mis-wrote.  It is not different species but breeds.  Why are not all dogs the same as wild dogs in Africa, for example?  Micro-evolution accounts for that.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

If God created Man, how did different races come about without micro-evolution?


----------



## james bond (Sep 23, 2020)

Rigby5 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



First, you have to admit dinosaurs are part of the Cambrian explosion.  According the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Cambrian Period is:

"*Cambrian Period*,  earliest time division of the Paleozoic Era, extending from 541 million to 485.4 million years ago."

Thus, you are way off in your estimate.

Moreover, the plants and animals found in that layer are like today; It shows they all died together in the same place.  I can't help it use selective evidence that matches your over 100 million of years old.  Your argument is not very accurate lol.

The actual evidence shows that the plants and animals in the same layer are like today, but you won't accept those results as being correct when they are found in the same Cambrian layer.


----------



## james bond (Sep 23, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> The change from light to dark and back again; how do you explain it but for the microevolution of natural selection



You got what you just stated from HB Kettlewell's research.  Birds were not the main predators of peppered moths.  Bats are.  They are noctunal like all moths.  I just pointed out Kettlewell's hypothesis was all wrong.  

I get tired of repeating myself.  The change from light to dark and back again was due to the alleles in the PM's gene already.  Both light and dark PMs existed at the same time.  There was no need for any evolution.  It's all part of natural selection.

We agree on the soot pollution, but the moths didn't perch on the bark of the tree.  They slept higher up in the tree under its leaves.  If Kettlewell just looked for the PMs elsewhere, then he would've found both light and dark existed in different percentages.  He was trying to fit the results to his theory.


----------



## james bond (Sep 23, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



>>Dog breeding is a form of microevolution; some species would not exist but for that.<<

That's what I asked you.  You're the one who made the claim.  Where's the microevolution?

Instead, my answer would be natural selection and artificial selection.  That's what I know.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The change from light to dark and back again; how do you explain it but for the microevolution of natural selection
> ...


Why the change?  Sharks, for example have not changed much regardless of the content of our oceans. 

Shark fossil records are abundant and diverse. They show that some species, living over 150 million years ago, were identical to those existing today.--https://www.sharktrust.org/shark-evolution

Any change must be a form of micro-evolution.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


There is more than the one original dog breed now than there was originally. Artificial and natural selection is a requirement for micro-evolution.


----------



## james bond (Sep 23, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I already answered why the change more than once.  You can read the above.

Next, you compare apples to oranges.

Also, you didn't read,

As for why sharks haven't changed, you can't figure it out from reading the article.  Why change when " Sharks have always dominated the top of the marine food chain."



danielpalos said:


> Artificial and natural selection is a requirement for micro-evolution.



No, those are the reason for the different breeds.  What else has to be present for microevolution?  I posted the answer above.

Rigby5 said:
"Dog breeding is just hybrids of existing DNA and is not evolution of any kind.
It takes mutations for evolution, and that can't happen to dogs in terms of human observation.
It takes millions of years."

Why he posts stuff like that me, I have no idea.  He should post to you.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Any Change is micro-evolution.  You are merely special pleading.  The mere fact that we have different races instead of one homogenous "race" is sufficient Proof of micro-evolution.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

PoliticalChic said:


> initforme said:
> 
> 
> > So if we get rid of evolution what other THEORY(which cannot be proven) should replace it?
> ...


Evolution means Change.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

Indeependent said:


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


If that is the case, then Intelligent Design is even more impossible.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...





james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


The Miller-Urey experiment proved micro-evolution happens.


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 23, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Uh huh...
Since you don't believe in God, can I have your Connection to God?
Please simply answer, "Yes".


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


It isn't my connection to God but you right wingers immorally complaining about Taxes after Jesus the Christ told you not to do that; all it takes is _morals_ to have a "Kingdom of God on Earth".


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 23, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Once again, anyone who does not align with you 100% is a RWer.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 23, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You're the one who wants Government to create an artificial wage.
Do you keep a track of what you post?


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


We would not need a minimum wage when all it should require is morals.  Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 23, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


List 10 nations where money doesn't talk.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 23, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


List ten nations who have no Government because they are moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from God.


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 23, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Which of the Ten Commandments states that everyone gets a Minimum Wage?


----------



## james bond (Sep 23, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



>>Any Change is micro-evolution.<<

Haha.  What's _macroevolution_ then?  You're the one special pleading and also wrong about microevolution..

>>The mere fact that we have different races instead of one homogenous "race" is sufficient Proof of micro-evolution.<<

No, it isn't.  Different races are due to the differences in environment and different expressions of the same set of genes.  There was no mutation involved.  We didn't microevolve into different races or sub species.  We are all of the same species of homo sapiens despite our different looks.  Again, those are due to the environment and different expressions of the same set of genes.  I'm tired of explaining basics that every _good_ evolutionist knows. We are done.

I don't think you understand microevolution and now are saying dumb things like different races vs one homogenous race to make up any sort of argument.  You don't discuss mutations and leave out long time.


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 23, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



No, races have nothing to do with environment of any one individual.
If a person is born in a hot climate, their DNA will produce the exact same amount of melanin as if they are born in a cold climate.
So then it can not be due to different expressions of the same set of genes.
It has to be differences in the genes.
We did micro-evolve into different races and would have evolved into different species if we had not started interbreeding.
Environment expression could not possibly have any reality or else a Black born in the Artic circle would not have dark skin.


----------



## abu afak (Sep 24, 2020)

Rigby5 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You have to understand James Bond is a Creationist FRAUD (in another Creationist FRAUD'S thread).
Palos also knows nothing!
and the two (and more) are making a mockery of the bd/Science/debating!
It's nutty here!

*Bond does NOT know what a subspecies/race is and doesn't not know what a Species is, nor does he acknowledge either!
He's an idiot/child-like creationist who believes in 'kinds'/look-alikes.
That all of them were put here by god about as is, and there is no significant difference between them except 'gene expression.'*

But actually, as soon as any species move over the hills, across rivers, etc, Genetic Drift begins, which is why we get races/subspecies.. and as you also correctly understand, eventually separate species.

In fact, Bond (the simpleton/idiot) would not acknowledge scientifically/taxonomically accepted different species or subspecies.
ie, Both Gorillas and Chimps not only have separate subspecies, they each have Two Different Species.
He would never acknowledge that even if he 'knew' it.
He's a literal/litter/looks-like Kweationist.
He has no genetics, no science, no evolution, just 'goddidit.'


*EDIT:
Notice embarrassed/OUTED James Bond's completely OFF Topic Deflection/non-denial, non-response, joke in 'reply' quoting me two below.*

`


----------



## james bond (Sep 24, 2020)

Rigby5 said:


> No, races have nothing to do with environment of any one individual.
> If a person is born in a hot climate, their DNA will produce the exact same amount of melanin as if they are born in a cold climate.
> So then it can not be due to different expressions of the same set of genes.
> It has to be differences in the genes.
> ...



Got any evolutionary science to back it up ethnicity boy?


----------



## james bond (Sep 24, 2020)

abu afak said:


> You have to understand James Bond is a Creationist FRAUD (in another Creationist FRAUD'S thread).



Let me tell yu a joke then.  A Muslim guy walks into a Muslim bookstore wearing a MAGA cap.

He is wandering around taking a look inside the store, so the clerk asked him if he could help the man find anything.

“Do you have a copy of Donald Trump’s book on his U.S. immigration policy regarding Muslims and illegal aliens?”

The clerk said, “Kiss my ass… get out… and stay out!”

The man said, “Yes, that’s the one.  Do you have it in paperback?”

Get it?  *“Kiss my ass… get out… and stay out!”  *


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 24, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


What do you mean by everyone getting the minimum wage?  Gravity Payments' minimum wage starts at thirty-five dollars an hour. 

And, 

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."  Proverbs 29:7

Why should we take right wingers seriously about morals?


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


It could take millions of years not just thousands of years for such mutations to occur. 

Micro-evolution happens and was proved by Gregor Mendel.

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Why do homo sapiens sapiens not all look like their common ancestor if no micro-evolution happens?


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 24, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


The word “righteous” is the Hebrew word tzaddik.
Do you know the definition of the word?
Do you know how the word applies to the communities where crime is rampant?


----------



## Rigby5 (Sep 24, 2020)

james bond said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> > No, races have nothing to do with environment of any one individual.
> ...



Easy.
Just look at different races who have moved to different environments.  If races were not permanently in their DNA and instead just environmental adaptations, then a Black couple relocated to the Arctic would have a white child.  But they don't.  Their children are still Black because their melanin is controlled by a permanent characteristic in the DNA of their race.
Obviously how much melanin your body produces can make you more or less successful depending on if you are living near the equator or the pole, but it can't quickly chance.  It takes millions of year of micro evolution in order to change.  And the only possible reason that could be true is if you have to wait for accidental mutations.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 27, 2020)

Indeependent said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found


----------



## james bond (Sep 27, 2020)

Rigby5 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Rigby5 said:
> ...



So wrong and you provided no link nor evidence.

Everyone has melanin, but different forms and ratios of it.  The forms are determined by your parents and the amount of melanin one has produces different shades.

The science shows, " _The expression of pigment is controlled by six main genes in the body, and this genetic makeup is largely determined by your parents and the generations that came before them. That’s how natural selection works._"

Thus, you have no way to micro evolve into different races.


----------



## james bond (Sep 27, 2020)

Basically, we don't have microevolution in races because a white couple can have a black child.  Evolutionists are racists in a way because they believed that it started with black people and ended up with white people.  However, we find natural selection doesn't work one way.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 28, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


It’s comical how science loathing religionists describe natural selection.

“Different races are due to the differences in environment and different expressions of the same set of genes.”

Adaptation to the environment is a function of evolution.


----------



## james bond (Sep 28, 2020)

The problem is the evolutionists are using facts to back up their theory.  True science is about using facts to form the theory to best explain what happened.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 28, 2020)

james bond said:


> The problem is the evolutionists are using facts to back up their theory.  True science is about using facts to form the theory to best explain what happened.


That makes no sense.


----------



## james bond (Sep 28, 2020)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is the evolutionists are using facts to back up their theory.  True science is about using facts to form the theory to best explain what happened.
> ...



It makes perfect sense for the knowledgeable people.

For example, we just were discussing race when there really isn't a category of race.  I was using the term _race_ loosely since it has to do with the color of our skin and I explained how the color of our skin is determined. I never got a chance to continue...

Race doesn't have anything to do with evolution as there is no category of race.  Yet, evolutionists will argue that it does and label and categorize people as being of different races.  How wrong can one be?  They actually differentiate how the color of skin makes us different.  Even Charles Darwin did this.

The subtitle of Charles Darwin book Origin of Species is "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."  From the context of the book, it shows that he had races of animals primarily in mind, but with his second book The Descent of Man, that it is also clear he thought of races of men in the same way.  This clearly is racism.  I've said many times that Darwin was a racist.

That this concept is still held today with the people here.  Also, it was evident from the following words of a later evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson:

   "Races of man have, or perhaps one should say 'had', exactly the same biological significance as the sub-species of other species of mammals." 1

1. George Gaylord Simpson: "The Biological Nature of Man," _Science_, Vol. 152, April 22, 1966, p. 474.

I don't think this has changed much from back then.  Does this show that evolutionists are racists?

However, this color does not make us a different race.  We are all still of the human race.  It's just that our outside looks different.  I think science has discovered this now.  We are all part of the human race, but for cultural or some other reason such as racism, we made up that we are different "races" due to color of our skin and such.  Furthermore, this made up category of race had to _evolve_ for the evolutionists. How could it when there was nothing to evolve? Basically, the differences of people can be categorized by languages, families, nations, and lands. This is how creation science looks at different "peoples." Not by skin color.

Does Race Exist?








						Does Race Exist?
					

Anthropologists George Gill and Loring Brace square off on the sensitive subject of whether race exists biologically.



					www.pbs.org


----------



## Hollie (Sep 28, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


It's standard fare for ID'iot creationers to use the "_evolutionism is racist_" canard. It's a convenient canard for the science loathing religionists. If you want to examine where your racist attitudes come from, the Christian Church is home to many of the most racist, evil men in all of humanity.










						Opinion | Racism among white Christians is higher than among the nonreligious. Here's why.
					

For most of American history, the light-skinned Jesus conjured up by white congregations demanded the preservation of inequality as part of the divine order.




					www.nbcnews.com
				




Racism among white Christians is higher than among the nonreligious. That's no coincidence.


----------



## Indeependent (Sep 28, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Never quote a verse out of it's context; start from verse one and know what the chapter is about.


----------



## james bond (Sep 28, 2020)

Hollie said:


> It's standard fare for ID'iot creationers to use the "_evolutionism is racist_" canard. It's a convenient canard for the science loathing religionists. If you want to examine where your racist attitudes come from, the Christian Church is home to many of the most racist, evil men in all of humanity.



I gave you science while you give me 2 cents opinions to back up your screed.  It's typical of your worthless standard posts.  There really is no point in discussing science with you anymore as I just dropped an atomic bomb on danielpalos, Rigby5, and Hollie about how race isn't a category of humans.  We're all part of one race of humans.  You have to consider how we are so messed up in terms of racial division.  I don't have an answer.  Evolution tries to explain it by microevolution, but there is no race nor microevolution.  That's the huge joke on you guys.  Kaboom.  GTFO.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 30, 2020)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It's standard fare for ID'iot creationers to use the "_evolutionism is racist_" canard. It's a convenient canard for the science loathing religionists. If you want to examine where your racist attitudes come from, the Christian Church is home to many of the most racist, evil men in all of humanity.
> ...



There is no science in hyper-religionism. 

I've suggested earlier that you learn to understand and use terms related to science. Unfortunately, when you retreat to slogans you steal from ID'iot creation ministries, you tend to confuse yourself and you get lost within any point you hope to make. 

The hyper-religious science deniers do tend to work themselves into a froth when their religionism is confronted by science realities. One of the unfortunate results is something of a pattern of behavior by the hyper-religious is to declare they ''won'' some point and then retreat to their ''the gods did it'' meme when their attempt at argument is shown to be tired slogans.


----------



## danielpalos (Sep 30, 2020)

james bond said:


> Basically, we don't have microevolution in races because a white couple can have a black child.  Evolutionists are racists in a way because they believed that it started with black people and ended up with white people.  However, we find natural selection doesn't work one way.


Better understanding of the now sequenced human genome shows the greatest diversity in DNA on the African continent.  


In the most comprehensive study of African genetic diversity to date, a team of international scientists, led by Dr Sarah Tishkoff from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, US, has revealed Africa to be the most genetically diverse continent on Earth.





						Africa is most genetically diverse continent, DNA study shows - BioNews
					






					www.bionews.org.uk
				



.

Modern humans are a lot alike--at least at the genetic level--compared with other primates. If you compare any two people from far-flung corners of the globe, their genomes will be much more similar than those of any pair of chimpanzees, gorillas, or other apes from different populations. Now, evolutionary geneticists have shown that our ancestors lost much of their genetic diversity in two dramatic bottlenecks that sharply squeezed down the population of modern humans as they moved out of Africa between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago.




__





						Science | AAAS
					






					www.sciencemag.org
				



.

Microevolution happened as we lost genetic diversity out of Africa.  From one perspective, right wing ideology could be "genetic" as we lost genetic diversity coming out of Africa and started to adapt to local environments where those best suited to the local environment could be the most successful.


----------



## james bond (Sep 30, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, we don't have microevolution in races because a white couple can have a black child.  Evolutionists are racists in a way because they believed that it started with black people and ended up with white people.  However, we find natural selection doesn't work one way.
> ...



If Africa is the most gentically diverse, then isn't that good?  Why are these scientists' goal to do research that will benefit Africans?  Shouldn't Africans be leading the way if they're the most diverse?


----------



## LuckyDuck (Oct 1, 2020)

Here's how I determine which is the most likely. 
1.  Evolution:  Mainstream scientists hold firm that evolution is both "fact" and theory.  The fact part stems from a combination of fossil, skeletal and DNA evidence.  The theory part, stems from scientists not currently understanding how those changes come about.
2.  Deity:  The existence of an "invisible" being that we just happen to look like (that's an example of a serious ego), with the ability to create an entire universe, complete with myriads of life forms, knows all, sees all and can do all and is.....perfect? (has all of humanities emotional failings) and is capable of watching every human being their entire life......well....the whole thing smells a bit fishy to me.
If there are mathematical odds favoring one over the other, it would clearly be in favor of.....evolution, especially now that it has been established to be a fact, based upon all the evidence.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 2, 2020)

james bond said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


The Carthaginians lost to the Romans and never recovered after that?


----------



## james bond (Oct 2, 2020)

danielpalos said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



I guess I'm not going to get an explanation of how microevolution happened by 1) losing genetic diversity out of Africa and 2) losing genetic diversity by adapting to local environments.  We had this "bottleneck" that killed how many and how many lesser groups got thru to the Middle East?  Then we had another where the same happened, but some people were able to get out to the Americas.  What about the Carthaginians and Romans?  I assume they were in the latter bottleneck.  Where's the microevolution and how did it happen?  I hope you're not going into race or ethnicity which is more a made up category.  It doesn't show the genetics diversity.  I don't think any microevolution has happened in humans.


----------

