Blowing Up Darwin

[PoliticalChic]

Charles Darwin was a natural philosopher ... and he published books on ... you guess it ... natural philosophy ...

Most of Darwin's personal contributions to ToE have been dismissed ... we don't use "survival of the fittest", at least not how Darwin defined fitness ... and "natural selection" was actually Russell Wallace's contribution ... Gregory Mendel's genetic work and the population dynamic studies done in the late 19th Century all combined to form what we call today the Modern synthesis (20th century) - Wikipedia ...

Darwinism is no better than alchemy or witchcraft ... today's ToE is chemistry ... we describe evolutionary change down to the individual atoms and electrons ...

Oh I'm sorry, I'm using college science again ... when will I learn my lesson eh? ... anything past not kissing your sister when she has the mumps is lost ...

Unfortunately, students as every level come away believing that Darwin's theory has been proven and should be considered as fact.

 

[alang1216]

Some posit the origin of life from "space garbage."

You'd be exhibit one.

Thanks for the technical treatise but if you don't know the answer to a question you'd look less pathetic if you admitted it, or just kept quiet.

 

[alang1216]

Unfortunately, students as every level come away believing that Darwin's theory has been proven and should be considered as fact.

Darwin's theory that we are all descended from a common ancestor is considered a fact due to the overwhelming evidence for it. If you don't accept scientific theories I guess you don't accept the theory of gravity.

 

[San Souci]

As recent developments have proven that the Democrats/Left has no compunction as far as lies, hoaxes and slander, it is time to highlight their similar attempts at the basis of Western Civilization….religion.
And the use of Darwin’s theory to attack same.

In this thread, an interview that Piers Morgan had with Dr. Stephen Meyer, about the actual science behind Charles Darwin’s theory (spoiler: there is none)​

When it comes to evolution, politics is more prominent than science. And with that in mind, .....a simple rule that will clarify the place Darwin’s Theory holds:
Any article, event, opinion, data or study that redounds in favor of the Left/Demorat Party, is to be considered a lie or hoax.

• 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.

• I will provide the interview of Meyer by Piers Morgan…..and quotes from that interview. Meyer provides FACTS. Put aside the Democrat/Liberal/Marxist anti-religion propaganda, and focus on the science that demolishes Darwin’s Theory.
• 
  
• 
  

• 
  
• Tucker Carlson, on Joe Rogan: “Evolution as articulated by Darwin is kinda not true. There is no evidence for it….if all life originated from a single organism, there would be a fossil record of that….and there is not.”
• 
  
• Meyer: “Here in London, 2016, there was a conference held by the most august scientific society, the Royal Society, a group of evolutionary biologists, are dissatisfied with Darwin’s method of evolutionary change, natural selection and random mutation …lacks the creative power to generate major changes in life.”

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin's theory that we are all descended from a common ancestor is considered a fact due to the overwhelming evidence for it. If you don't accept scientific theories I guess you don't accept the theory of gravity.

"Darwin's theory that we are all descended from a common ancestor is considered a fact due to the overwhelming evidence for it. "


Written like the total idiot that you are.


I bet you vote Democrat......for this:

Race and gender preferences

Language police

No punishment for criminals

Open borders

Attacks on the Supreme Court

Transgender sports competitions

Antisemitism

Wealth tax

Cancel culture

Welfare State

Government run healthcare mandates

Sanctuary Cities

Two-Tiered Justice system

(Thanks to O’Reilly and Prager)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin's theory that we are all descended from a common ancestor is considered a fact due to the overwhelming evidence for it. If you don't accept scientific theories I guess you don't accept the theory of gravity.

Could you provide that overwhelming evidence?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin's theory that we are all descended from a common ancestor is considered a fact due to the overwhelming evidence for it. If you don't accept scientific theories I guess you don't accept the theory of gravity.

If anyone needed evidence in order to close the government school system, this poster is a priori.

 

[alang1216]

Could you provide that overwhelming evidence?

Happy to. Which field of science would you prefer? Genetics, paleontology, anatomy, or geography?

 

[alang1216]

If anyone needed evidence in order to close the government school system, this poster is a priori.

Good point. Those 'government' school systems tend to teach science, if you want theology and conspiracy theories you need to go elsewhere.

 

[abu afak]

Unfortunately, students as every level come away believing that Darwin's theory has been proven and should be considered as fact.[/B]

AGAIN (8, 9, 10?)
Scientific American.
15 answers to Creationist Nonsense

I'm going to Force you to SWALLOW even with your 12 IQ.

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

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

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

``

 

[Foxfyre]

The explain it 'Nobrain.' Explain how something came from nothing. I said you don't have to call it God but you totally ignored that in order to insult me. You've been hanging out here cowardly giving my posts a thumbs down, now you finally post something and it's nothing but bullshit. You can't seem to have an honest discussion and are here to be a troll.

I don't agree with Scruffy but at least he is willing to divulge his knowledge on the subject. You apparently are devoid of any knowledge whatsoever.

Accept it. Some people simply cannot debate/discuss a concept or principle but use the thumbs down thing just to be ugly. I consider those a badge of honor from some people and take it mostly as confirmation that I'm on the right track.

 

[PoliticalChic]

AGAIN (8, 9, 10?)
Scientific American.
15 answers to Creationist Nonsense

I'm going to Force you to SWALLOW even with your 12 IQ.

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

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

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

``

Scientific American is neither scientific nor American.


It is owned and operated by the woke Marxists/Democrats.



....cultural Marxists, have taken over nearly every avenue of the dissemination of information.


This is the problem when totalitarians take control.

1. In the Soviet Union, science gave up its mission.....the collection of provable knowledge.....at the point of a gun. Under the other socialist entity, the Nazis, the same produced all sorts of 'knowledge' about Jews and other undesirables.
No guns were necessary here.




2. Those of us who don't vote Democrat recognized the facts long ago. This was a 2021 Scientific American

3. "This is the real cover, which reads like a joke....
offers the following gems, all straight from the world of Critical Race Theory, the most racist concept to hit America since the KKK was kicked to the basement:

• From Civil Rights to Black Lives Matter
• How Diversity Makes Us Smarter
• We'll Never Fix Systemic Racism by Being Polite
• How to Unlearn Racism
• How to Think about 'Implicit Bias'
• The Flexibility of Racial Bias
• Bias Detectives
• Microaggressions: Death by a Thousand Cuts
• George Floyd's Autopsy and the Structural Gaslighting of America (an article that required 12 people to fill the byline)
• The Brilliance Paradox: What Really Keeps Women and Minorities from Excelling in Academia
• Inequality before Birth Contributes to Health Inequality in Adults
• The Harm That Data Do
• Why Racism, Not Race, Is a Risk Factor for Dying of COVID-19
• We Learned the Wrong Lessons from the Tuskegee 'Experiment'
• To Prevent Women from Dying in Childbirth, First Stop Blaming Them
• The Racist Roots of Fighting Obesity
• A Civil Rights Expert Explains the Social Science of Police Racism
• White Chicago Cops Use Force More Often Than Black Officers
• Police Violence Calls for Measures beyond De-escalation Training
• How Economic Inequality Harms the Environment
• People of Color Breathe More Unhealthy Air from Nearly All Polluting Sources
• Solar Power's Benefits Don't Shine Equally on Everyone
• The Case for Antiracism
• Implicit Biases toward Race and Sexuality Have Decreased
• We Must Confront Anti-Asian Racism in Science
• Take Racism Out of Medical Algorithms
• Clinical Trials Have Far Too Little Racial and Ethnic Diversity
• Three Ways to Fix Toxic Policing
• What Neuroimaging Can Tell Us about Our Unconscious Biases
• Racism and Sexism in Science Haven't Disappeared

 

[alang1216]

Which did you object to the research or the experts?

 

[abu afak]

The explain it 'Nobrain.' Explain how something came from nothing. I said you don't have to call it God but you totally ignored that in order to insult me. You've been hanging out here cowardly giving my posts a thumbs down, now you finally post something and it's nothing but bullshit. You can't seem to have an honest discussion and are here to be a troll.

I don't agree with Scruffy but at least he is willing to divulge his knowledge on the subject. You apparently are devoid of any knowledge whatsoever.

SO you can Respond, just had no answer to my other 20+ responses/refutations/humiliations.
But you feel you FINALLY have a winner now.

But You're playing "God of the Gaps" FALLACY instead of the correct position, "We don't know/Know yet."
The same baseLess idea that gave us 10,000 other now Gone gods: Lightning, Fire, Fertility, etc. which seemed to be god/unexplainable otherwise then.

My OP/discussion below

God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner. If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...

www.usmessageboard.com

God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")​

• THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
  "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
  And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.
  
  If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
  The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'
• 
  
• 
  
  1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki
  
  God of the gaps
  
  (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
  
  The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument
  
  The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:
  
  *There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
  *Therefore the cause must be supernatural.
  
  One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]
  
  God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]
• ------------
• 
  There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
  `

`

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are a man who always sticks by his convictions. You will remain a fool no matter how much you get ridiculed for it!


BTW.....that's not a compliment.

 

[scruffy]

It is pretty undeniable that there is structure in the universe. How that structure came to be, is unknown. We discover it, in stages. It's like peeling away the layers of an onion. We get a better understanding as time goes on.

The thing is, it usually takes years or even centuries, between the observation and the explanation. Evolution is much like gravity that way. The ancient Greeks already observed that things fall "down" and masses attract. But it took 1500 years till Newton gave us the theory of a gravitational "potential", and then another 100 years before Riemann and Poincare gave potential a context in terms of "fields", and finally Einstein came along and described curved fields. Today, we use sophisticated mathematical methods that even let us describe "random" curved fields. Tomorrow we'll probably figure out how to curve a random field at will.

The physicists are talking about Calabi-Yau manifolds, 12 dimensional symmetric structures that preserve all the conservation laws. And once again these are not "things", they're just shapes - relationships. The "thing" underlying the relationship is still some kind of mysterious universal energy. It underlies everything we see, and everything we know. You can call it "energy", you can call it God, you can call it whatever you want. The simple fact is there is energy and there is a set of relationships - and those relationships are structured and highly ordered. They give us everything from gravity to life itself.

I happen to be a Christian who believes in God. My wife is Buddhist, and over the years we've learned that we believe in the same thing. I call it the Ten Commandments, she calls it the Eightfold Way. It's the same thing. It's a moral foundation for human beings. We don't fight about what to call it, and we don't force one version or another on our kids. We show the children what we know, and let them decide for themselves which parts are useful. We just want them to be happy we'll adjusted kids, with some guidance to fall back on when things get rough. (Which they always do, in a world full of human beings).

So I personally, take the same approach with science. I don't care what you call it, call it evolution or call it God, makes no difference to me. As long as we agree on what we're talking about and what we're seeing, we can communicate. It doesn't make any sense to argue about what to call the structure, it only makes sense to study it and learn more about it. I find it most useful to do that in the lab, but if you find it easier to do it in church, knock yourself out. What's problematic is "ideology", the denial of the evidence that's right before our eyes. Denial is the mind killer. Wouldn't you agree that we want to learn more about our lives and our universe? However that happens is fine with me, as long as learning and advancement take place. I like structure, I like to keep things in compartments because it helps me organize my life. That's why I don't mix science and social ideology.

 

[abu afak]

...I don't care what you call it, call it evolution or call it God, makes No difference to me...

You are always Full of shlt/ambiguating (oft with long goofy pompous rambles) instead of clarifying. Probably your admitted faith.

It makes a Huge 'difference whether you call it evolution or god' (or Genesis-like Creation).
Those are two Polar Opposite sides of the debate: THE topic here.

One by mutation and natural selection, the other by god creating life/creatures roughly AS they are now, oft including man in less than 10,000 years... which demonstrably did NOT happen.

You are a wealth of Misinformation, and your biases/mental problems prevent you from using your knowledge constructively instead of to BS everyone here.. as well as yourself.
`

 

[scruffy]

You are always Full of shlt/ambiguating (oft with long goofy rambles) instead of clarifying. Probably your admitted faith.

It makes a Huge 'difference whether you call it evolution or god' (or Genesis-like Creation).
Those are two Polar Opposite sides of the debate:

No, they're not.

One by mutation and natural selection, the other by god creating life/creatures roughly AS they are now, oft including man in less than 10,000 years... which demonstrably did NOT happen.

You are talking about a tiny subset of other peoples' beliefs.

The mainstream of religion believes in evolution, even if they challenge the particulars.

You are a wealth of Misinformation, and your biases/mental problems prevent you from using your knowledge constructively instead of to BS everyone here.. as well as yourself.
`

You purpose seems to be to diss religion.

I'm not about that.

I support science, and that's as far as I go.

Sorry if that doesn't meet your standards.

 

[abu afak]

No, they're not.

Empty denial

You are talking about a tiny subset of other peoples' beliefs.

The mainstream of religion believes in evolution, even if they challenge the particulars.

Not in this thread and NOT the OP.
And because many Christians believe in Evo, does NOT mean they are the Same beliefs/should be called the 'same.'
The most adamant/main anti-Evos are 40 Million evangelical Christians like the OP.
RidicKulous try.

You purpose seems to be to diss religion.

I'm not about that.

I support science, and that's as far as I go.

Sorry if that doesn't meet your standards.

My purpose in this Sci section/This thread is to refute the Lying Biblical Literalist/anti-science Twot who started this thread to "Blow Up" the most important figure and idea in Biology.
One who you also Wrongly dissed as no longer relevant because you too have issues.
You remain Full of Shlt and did not answer me. (because there is none).

`

 

[scruffy]

My purpose in this Sci section/This thread is to refute the Lying Biblical Literalist/anti-science Twot who started this thread to "Blow Up" the most important figure and idea in Biology.
One who you also Wrongly dissed as no longer relevant because you too have issues.
You remain Full of Shlt and did not answer me. (because there is none).

You don't do that by telling people they're full of shit.

You do that by showing them the evidence and letting them make up their own minds.

I don't like authoritarianism, and neither does anyone else. You'll notice I've made an effort in this thread to frame the science in a way that's accessible to the layman. That's how you win friends and influence people. Not by clobbering them over the head with a science that's too sophisticated for many people to understand.

I seek common ground and agreement. I have no quarrel with my religious brothers and sisters, they're not trying to kill my kids or steal my land.

If I had more time I would lay out the 18 converging lines of evidence for evolution in detail. But I don't, I only get to visit this forum on breaks and between jobs.

Maybe you could lighten up a little? Your posting looks like the materialistic ideologue that the OP is complaining about. Which just proves her point. I want to show her that there's a middle ground, that you can have faith and still believe in science.