Can It Be Science If It's Based On Lies???

[PredFan]

With all due respect PC, your points are confused, taken incorrectly or out of context, and you go on and build these elaborate strawmen based in them.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete and that isn't the fault of Darwin. It's in the strict requirements of conditions to create a fossil. Evolution can be demonstrated in the little bit of the fossil record that we do have but the fossil record alone can't prove evolution, and isn't what Darwin based his theory on.

Not only am I absolutely correct on the facts, but folks who make their living as scientists know what I am posting to be true.
There are no 'strawmen,' no Biblical reference, just real science.



Now, take this bit of absurdity that you post:
"Evolution can be demonstrated in the little bit of the fossil record that we do have but the fossil record alone can't prove evolution, and isn't what Darwin based his theory on."

No, evolution cannot be demonstrated....merely conjectured.

Fossil record?
Did you see what I just posted from Dr. Nelson?

Would you like to argue your experienced with his?



How about Eugene Koonin:
"Eugene V. Koonin (born October 26, 1956) is an American biologist and Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health,[1] Bethesda, MD, USA . He is a recognised expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology.

Koonin gained a Master of Science in 1978 and a PhD in 1983 in Molecular Biology from Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, USSR. He conducted research in Computational Biology at the Institute of Poliomyelitis and Institute of Microbiology, Moscow (USSR) in 1985-1991. He has worked at the NCBI since 1991 and is Editor of Genome Analysis section in Trends in Genetics. Koonin has an Erdős number of 2."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Koonin


In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”

So….Darwin was wrong? "In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
Biology Direct | Full text | The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



I don't mean to upset you folks, but at some point you'll either have to recognize that lies are being told...and called science.

And then you may begin to ask why it is so very essential for Darwin to be correct.

You haven't pointed to any lies. You have posted a great deal of stuff, but nothing that is a lie or exposes a lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Really,

Science is based off of observations within the real world. One area to think about is within viruses. We're constantly having to figure out ways to stay ahead of evolution when it comes to deadly diseases and they adapt really fast...WE can also see evolution within a fairly short time span in different adaptions within the same species.(Birds, different beaks, etc) The only lie is believing some book written by a group of guys 2,000 years ago and believing it as truth. If that is the drive behind your op then I feel sorry for you.

I'll stick with science!

They let you out of the 'nervous hospital' today?

That lobotomy scar healed up real nice.

 

[PredFan]

Surely you are more astute than that.


Aren't you?


I draw your attention to vague 'escapy' words meant to suggest what they cannot prove.

In your link: "... It would appear..." and "...we would expect..."

yes, when speaking about the nostrils of the Pakicetus, which were at the front, and then the gray whale, they said it would appear that the nostrils moved from the front of the skull to the top, and so we would expect to find an intermediate species with nostrils higher than the front but lower than the top - and what do you know it they show that with Aetiocetus.

so they formed a hypothesis and then, looking at the fossil evidence, found that hypothesis to be valid.

But real scientists demand more than merely expectations.

Gareth Nelson, fossil expert of the American Museum of Natural History, in NYC, stated:
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
Gareth Nelson, "Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969)," in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, "The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography--25 years after 'ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law' (Nelson, 1978)," Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712.


He has also said something that applies to the link you've provided:
"But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”


Superstition....that's what Darwin's theory is.
You certainly can accept it based on some sort of faith, but not based on any real proof.

Take that under advisement....and look more closely at "proof" involving the fossil record.
It doesn't provide same.



Further.....ask yourself, why is Darwin pushed so fervently? I mean, assuming that said proof is a myth....what is the value of the theory?

you do understand that by saying that the fossil record is only data is not a refutation of evolution but an acknowledgement that study needs to continue.

and that data, the fossil record, supports evolution.

unless you have something that disproves it?

1. So....you are admitting that Dr. Nelson's statements are....dispositive?

Good start.


2. Now for this:
"you do understand that by saying that the fossil record is only data is not a refutation of evolution but an acknowledgement that study needs to continue."

a. The OP makes clear that the fossil record is the primary basis for the theory.
That's directly from the National Academy of Sciences.


b. "...not a refutation of evolution..."
As soon as you folks realize that I am correct re: Darwin's theory, you pretend that I am claiming that evolution itself is under attack.
First, I have been very specific, and secondly, you seem unaware of the fact that Darwin's is not the only theory of evolution put forward by scientists.
Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, the opposite of Darwin's, is accepted by some.
There are other theories as well.


c. "....acknowledgement that study needs to continue."
Do you realize that the search for proof of Darwin's theory is 155 years old, and that there are more scientists working today that all of previous history combined.....and still no fossil record proof nor observations of one species becoming another?


I ask again.....what could possibly explain the fact that lies are used to advance a flawed theory?

The fossil record is not nor has it ever been the primary basis for the Theory of Evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You could debate it even more by adding that God is just a theory and has never been proven..

I always wait for some loser to bring up the Bible or God in this discussion.

I never have.

That's because I understand the science, and the lack thereof.



But...I understand that many accept Darwin's theory on faith.
Peace be with them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

With all due respect PC, your points are confused, taken incorrectly or out of context, and you go on and build these elaborate strawmen based in them.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete and that isn't the fault of Darwin. It's in the strict requirements of conditions to create a fossil. Evolution can be demonstrated in the little bit of the fossil record that we do have but the fossil record alone can't prove evolution, and isn't what Darwin based his theory on.

Not only am I absolutely correct on the facts, but folks who make their living as scientists know what I am posting to be true.
There are no 'strawmen,' no Biblical reference, just real science.



Now, take this bit of absurdity that you post:
"Evolution can be demonstrated in the little bit of the fossil record that we do have but the fossil record alone can't prove evolution, and isn't what Darwin based his theory on."

No, evolution cannot be demonstrated....merely conjectured.

Fossil record?
Did you see what I just posted from Dr. Nelson?

Would you like to argue your experienced with his?



How about Eugene Koonin:
"Eugene V. Koonin (born October 26, 1956) is an American biologist and Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health,[1] Bethesda, MD, USA . He is a recognised expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology.

Koonin gained a Master of Science in 1978 and a PhD in 1983 in Molecular Biology from Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, USSR. He conducted research in Computational Biology at the Institute of Poliomyelitis and Institute of Microbiology, Moscow (USSR) in 1985-1991. He has worked at the NCBI since 1991 and is Editor of Genome Analysis section in Trends in Genetics. Koonin has an Erdős number of 2."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Koonin


In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”

So….Darwin was wrong? "In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
Biology Direct | Full text | The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



I don't mean to upset you folks, but at some point you'll either have to recognize that lies are being told...and called science.

And then you may begin to ask why it is so very essential for Darwin to be correct.

at best you can say that the theory of evolution doesn't explain the diversity of life on the planet to your satisfaction, you cannot claim that any lies have been told.

also, you haven't shown that evolution doesn't occur, just that you have questions about how it happens - which is fine - but you mistake your ignorance for some sort of conspiracy to... what exactly?

so again, at best you can raise questions - and some of them don't have easy answers but none of them negate the theory of evolution.

"...you cannot claim that any lies have been told."

Claim it???

I've proven it.


Re-read the OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

With all due respect PC, your points are confused, taken incorrectly or out of context, and you go on and build these elaborate strawmen based in them.

The fossil record is woefully incomplete and that isn't the fault of Darwin. It's in the strict requirements of conditions to create a fossil. Evolution can be demonstrated in the little bit of the fossil record that we do have but the fossil record alone can't prove evolution, and isn't what Darwin based his theory on.

Not only am I absolutely correct on the facts, but folks who make their living as scientists know what I am posting to be true.
There are no 'strawmen,' no Biblical reference, just real science.



Now, take this bit of absurdity that you post:
"Evolution can be demonstrated in the little bit of the fossil record that we do have but the fossil record alone can't prove evolution, and isn't what Darwin based his theory on."

No, evolution cannot be demonstrated....merely conjectured.

Fossil record?
Did you see what I just posted from Dr. Nelson?

Would you like to argue your experienced with his?



How about Eugene Koonin:
"Eugene V. Koonin (born October 26, 1956) is an American biologist and Senior Investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health,[1] Bethesda, MD, USA . He is a recognised expert in the field of evolutionary and computational biology.

Koonin gained a Master of Science in 1978 and a PhD in 1983 in Molecular Biology from Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, USSR. He conducted research in Computational Biology at the Institute of Poliomyelitis and Institute of Microbiology, Moscow (USSR) in 1985-1991. He has worked at the NCBI since 1991 and is Editor of Genome Analysis section in Trends in Genetics. Koonin has an Erdős number of 2."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Koonin


In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.”

So….Darwin was wrong? "In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.”
Biology Direct | Full text | The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.



I don't mean to upset you folks, but at some point you'll either have to recognize that lies are being told...and called science.

And then you may begin to ask why it is so very essential for Darwin to be correct.

at best you can say that the theory of evolution doesn't explain the diversity of life on the planet to your satisfaction, you cannot claim that any lies have been told.

also, you haven't shown that evolution doesn't occur, just that you have questions about how it happens - which is fine - but you mistake your ignorance for some sort of conspiracy to... what exactly?

so again, at best you can raise questions - and some of them don't have easy answers but none of them negate the theory of evolution.

"...also, you haven't shown that evolution doesn't occur,..."


Now, read this very slowly:

Unless you can show where I've said either that evolution has occurred, or has not occurred....

....then consider yourself exposed as a liar and a dope.



You're on.

 

[orogenicman]

Why is Darwin seen as the definitive authority of evolutionary science?

Not even Einstein's theory of relativity is definative. Einstein built on Newton.

Einstein and Newton were spearted by some 300 years.

The theory of Evolution is less than 150 years old.

God is 10,000 years old and people still can't prove his theories.

Erm, god has theories? So much for his omnipotence, then.

 

[PoliticalChic]

yes, when speaking about the nostrils of the Pakicetus, which were at the front, and then the gray whale, they said it would appear that the nostrils moved from the front of the skull to the top, and so we would expect to find an intermediate species with nostrils higher than the front but lower than the top - and what do you know it they show that with Aetiocetus.

so they formed a hypothesis and then, looking at the fossil evidence, found that hypothesis to be valid.

you do understand that by saying that the fossil record is only data is not a refutation of evolution but an acknowledgement that study needs to continue.

and that data, the fossil record, supports evolution.

unless you have something that disproves it?

1. So....you are admitting that Dr. Nelson's statements are....dispositive?

Good start.


2. Now for this:
"you do understand that by saying that the fossil record is only data is not a refutation of evolution but an acknowledgement that study needs to continue."

a. The OP makes clear that the fossil record is the primary basis for the theory.
That's directly from the National Academy of Sciences.


b. "...not a refutation of evolution..."
As soon as you folks realize that I am correct re: Darwin's theory, you pretend that I am claiming that evolution itself is under attack.
First, I have been very specific, and secondly, you seem unaware of the fact that Darwin's is not the only theory of evolution put forward by scientists.
Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, the opposite of Darwin's, is accepted by some.
There are other theories as well.


c. "....acknowledgement that study needs to continue."
Do you realize that the search for proof of Darwin's theory is 155 years old, and that there are more scientists working today that all of previous history combined.....and still no fossil record proof nor observations of one species becoming another?

I ask again.....what could possibly explain the fact that lies are used to advance a flawed theory?

you haven't shown any lies at all. ever.
further, whether you want to accept it or not, evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet.

and the fossil record does support the theory of evolution. there are clear, traceable paths from modern animals and plants to their ancestors.

"...evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet."

What does that have to do with any of my posts?


What it does show is that you are trying to wipe the egg off your face by pretending that you misunderstood the issue.

You didn't.

When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed, he wasn’t referring to your reputation.



Step off, boy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you may find this article interesting.
Evolution: Library: The Cambrian Explosion

I've posted extensively about the Cambrian explosion, and about the Burgess Shale.

Be specific and tell me exactly what you'd like me to counter.

i don't want you to counter anything. i want you to read and learn.

See....now you're upset because I've made you look like the fool that you are.

 

[orogenicman]

I've posted extensively about the Cambrian explosion, and about the Burgess Shale.

Be specific and tell me exactly what you'd like me to counter.

i don't want you to counter anything. i want you to read and learn.

See....now you're upset because I've made you look like the fool that you are.

Hey PC. We are still waiting for you to discover that Cambrian era bunny rabbit? How is that going for you? Win any Nobel prizes yet?

 

[ogibillm]

1. So....you are admitting that Dr. Nelson's statements are....dispositive?

Good start.


2. Now for this:
"you do understand that by saying that the fossil record is only data is not a refutation of evolution but an acknowledgement that study needs to continue."

a. The OP makes clear that the fossil record is the primary basis for the theory.
That's directly from the National Academy of Sciences.


b. "...not a refutation of evolution..."
As soon as you folks realize that I am correct re: Darwin's theory, you pretend that I am claiming that evolution itself is under attack.
First, I have been very specific, and secondly, you seem unaware of the fact that Darwin's is not the only theory of evolution put forward by scientists.
Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, the opposite of Darwin's, is accepted by some.
There are other theories as well.


c. "....acknowledgement that study needs to continue."
Do you realize that the search for proof of Darwin's theory is 155 years old, and that there are more scientists working today that all of previous history combined.....and still no fossil record proof nor observations of one species becoming another?

I ask again.....what could possibly explain the fact that lies are used to advance a flawed theory?

you haven't shown any lies at all. ever.
further, whether you want to accept it or not, evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet.

and the fossil record does support the theory of evolution. there are clear, traceable paths from modern animals and plants to their ancestors.

"...evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet."

What does that have to do with any of my posts?


What it does show is that you are trying to wipe the egg off your face by pretending that you misunderstood the issue.

You didn't.

When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed, he wasn’t referring to your reputation.



Step off, boy.

you're trying to claim that evolution is a lie, correct?

 

[PoliticalChic]

you haven't shown any lies at all. ever.
further, whether you want to accept it or not, evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet.

and the fossil record does support the theory of evolution. there are clear, traceable paths from modern animals and plants to their ancestors.

"...evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet."

What does that have to do with any of my posts?


What it does show is that you are trying to wipe the egg off your face by pretending that you misunderstood the issue.

You didn't.

When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed, he wasn’t referring to your reputation.



Step off, boy.

you're trying to claim that evolution is a lie, correct?

Have someone without A.D.D. read the thread and explain it to you.

 

[orogenicman]

i don't want you to counter anything. i want you to read and learn.

See....now you're upset because I've made you look like the fool that you are.

Hey PC. We are still waiting for you to discover that Cambrian era bunny rabbit? How is that going for you? Win any Nobel prizes yet?

Bump


Speechless? Interesting.

 

[ogibillm]

"...evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet."

What does that have to do with any of my posts?


What it does show is that you are trying to wipe the egg off your face by pretending that you misunderstood the issue.

You didn't.

When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed, he wasn’t referring to your reputation.



Step off, boy.

you're trying to claim that evolution is a lie, correct?

Have someone without A.D.D. read the thread and explain it to you.

it's a simple question. please answer it. you have a posting style that borders on insane rambling so divining the meaning, or your intended meaning, out of them can be difficult.

i believe you are making the claim that the theory of evolution is a lie. is that or is that not what you are claiming?

 

[ScienceRocks]

you haven't shown any lies at all. ever.
further, whether you want to accept it or not, evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet.

and the fossil record does support the theory of evolution. there are clear, traceable paths from modern animals and plants to their ancestors.

"...evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet."

What does that have to do with any of my posts?


What it does show is that you are trying to wipe the egg off your face by pretending that you misunderstood the issue.

You didn't.

When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed, he wasn’t referring to your reputation.



Step off, boy.

you're trying to claim that evolution is a lie, correct?

I believe a losertive believes all science is a lie. Honestly, these people don't get the reality that a lot of science is trail and error built on the backs of many generations of science. So far evolution looks to be a solid theory that stands up to all falsifications. Not to say that one day it can't be disproven but these people seem to want to throw it out based on the fact that it threatens their faith in god o'might!!!

 

[PredFan]

From what I can gather, she claims that someone stayed that the fossil record is the definitive proof of Darwin's Theory. I suspect that if this is so, it was taken out of context. I know Charles Darwin never claimed that. Maybe PC will answer the question.

 

[PoliticalChic]

From what I can gather, she claims that someone stayed that the fossil record is the definitive proof of Darwin's Theory. I suspect that if this is so, it was taken out of context. I know Charles Darwin never claimed that. Maybe PC will answer the question.

" I know Charles Darwin never claimed that."

He most certainly did.




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



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



3. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.



So....being wrong about something you so fervently believe, " I know Charles Darwin never claimed that".....
...shouldn't you begin to question what else you fervently believe?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...evolution is the theory that best explains the diversity of life on the planet."

What does that have to do with any of my posts?


What it does show is that you are trying to wipe the egg off your face by pretending that you misunderstood the issue.

You didn't.

When Galileo stated that everything falls at the same speed, he wasn’t referring to your reputation.



Step off, boy.

you're trying to claim that evolution is a lie, correct?

I believe a losertive believes all science is a lie. Honestly, these people don't get the reality that a lot of science is trail and error built on the backs of many generations of science. So far evolution looks to be a solid theory that stands up to all falsifications. Not to say that one day it can't be disproven but these people seem to want to throw it out based on the fact that it threatens their faith in god o'might!!!

And I believe you to be a moron.

Matthew the Moron.


Thanks so very much for proving same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

you're trying to claim that evolution is a lie, correct?

Have someone without A.D.D. read the thread and explain it to you.

it's a simple question. please answer it. you have a posting style that borders on insane rambling so divining the meaning, or your intended meaning, out of them can be difficult.

i believe you are making the claim that the theory of evolution is a lie. is that or is that not what you are claiming?

Just stop making excuses for your stupidity.

 

[orogenicman]

Have someone without A.D.D. read the thread and explain it to you.

it's a simple question. please answer it. you have a posting style that borders on insane rambling so divining the meaning, or your intended meaning, out of them can be difficult.

i believe you are making the claim that the theory of evolution is a lie. is that or is that not what you are claiming?

Just stop making excuses for your stupidity.

You can't answer a simple question, and he is the stupid one making excuses? You just proved yet again that being saved requires one to lose all sense of the ironic. Congratulations.