Comrade Darwin

[PoliticalChic]

But speaking of grasping, why not try grasping the simple question I asked you? Perhaps you could answer it?

I am fine with TOE, ID, creationism, natural selection, etc. being taught as competing theories/explanations.

But I oppose TOE being taught as an irrefutable scientific fact. .

I have never seen Evolution taught as fact. Nor have I seen it presented as fact in any biology textbook. (and my degree is in Secondary Ed/Comprehensive Sciences)

In fact, I too would object to it being taught as fact.

ID or creationism have no place in a science curriculum.

This is one of those posts where a proponent claims it isn't so because it hasn't been presented in notarized form.


As Darwin's thesis is presented in school sans any alternative nor critiques....well...then folk believe it as fact.


Case in point: you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lordy, lordy. Well, PC, why don't you just take your wonderful silliness down to the many universities in this nation and enlighten those poor benighted biologists.

Today I'll construct another in this series....and explain " those poor benighted biologists."


Hope you read it and look forward to your comments.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most scientific theories have spots you can pick out and exploit.

The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth.

Is it perfect? Not even close. But then, since we are dealing with events that happened millions of years ago, it is hard to experiment.

If you would like to suggest a better scientific answer, please feel free.

"The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth."



Well, it certainly is elegant.
Unfortunately it lends itself to a destructive worldview, as one can see in the OP.


I like your statement....but to be correct, you'd best replace 'scientific' with 'philosophical.'



Then, we'd agree.

The TOE is both elegant and largely verifiable.

Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya leaves you as the subject of ridicule.

"largely verifiable"

No it isn't.


You're simply.....simple.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In science class? The Theory of Evolution has many facets. You agreed that Natural Selection is acceptable, and that is a part of it. ID relies solely on some outside force acting on all life, and there is not one shred of evidence of the existence of that outside force, to say nothing of it actually accomplishing the creation of the millions of species we have.

And yet, science doesn't have the slightest clue how life came into existence. .

Evolution does not address how life came into existence. It never has.

As for the mechanism by which things "want" to crawl, fly, run and swim, it certainly does know and explains it.

Things move either towards food, reproduction, or safety or they move away from predators and danger. If everything moves slowly, the thing that moves faster will eat better, be safer, escape predators, and reproduce. The idea that any animal "wants" to do those things is not really a correct concept. "Want" is desiring something and is an abstract that lower life forms would not have.

"As for the mechanism by which things "want" to crawl, fly, run and swim, it certainly does know and explains it."


Friend, I'm certain that there are subjects and issues about which you are knowledgeable....

But this topic isn't one of them.


You have a third grader's understanding of evolution.





1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
Therefore one species must evolve into another.
There is no proof for this view.

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.
This is where the fossil record comes in.
And the The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!



2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."



You are embarrassing yourself.

Pick up a book.....

 

[Hollie]

"The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth."



Well, it certainly is elegant.
Unfortunately it lends itself to a destructive worldview, as one can see in the OP.


I like your statement....but to be correct, you'd best replace 'scientific' with 'philosophical.'



Then, we'd agree.

The TOE is both elegant and largely verifiable.

Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya leaves you as the subject of ridicule.

"largely verifiable"

No it isn't.


You're simply.....simple.

You may wish to define the sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontoloy, etc., as some grand conspiracy, but doing so adds nothing in support of your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The theory of Evolution deals with things that happened millions of years ago and happened over the course of extremely long periods of time. You cannot recreate that in a lab.

But tell us, Sunni Man, what do you think should be taught in biology class concerning the huge variety of species on earth?

"The theory of Evolution deals with things that happened millions of years ago and happened over the course of extremely long periods of time. You cannot recreate that in a lab."


You haven't studied the subject beyond what your high school teacher said....have you?


Darwin wrote in his Origin,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth.



Darwin wrote immediately afterward:

"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 . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164



Do you understand?

Fossils have been found in every strata....
...in fact, they were the basis for guessing the age of strata, early on.



But Darwin recognized that the Cambrian explosion contained species for which there were no precursors!
Not gradually, based on accumulated mutations....but suddenly!




Jump to modern times.....still no explanation for the sudden appearance of new organisms with new body types.....

So Stephen Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, admits that Darwin must be incorrect:

Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"



And you say.....what?

And you're still cutting and pasting these phony "quotes"?

My goodness but your time at the Harun Yahya website has been a cult indoctrination.

1. I am unaware of the website you use.

2. The quote is totally accurate.



Why don't you attempt to confront the OP?

 

[Hollie]

Lordy, lordy. Well, PC, why don't you just take your wonderful silliness down to the many universities in this nation and enlighten those poor benighted biologists.

Today I'll construct another in this series....and explain " those poor benighted biologists."


Hope you read it and look forward to your comments.

Yet another thread of cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

 

[Hollie]

"The theory of Evolution deals with things that happened millions of years ago and happened over the course of extremely long periods of time. You cannot recreate that in a lab."


You haven't studied the subject beyond what your high school teacher said....have you?


Darwin wrote in his Origin,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth.



Darwin wrote immediately afterward:

"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 . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164



Do you understand?

Fossils have been found in every strata....
...in fact, they were the basis for guessing the age of strata, early on.



But Darwin recognized that the Cambrian explosion contained species for which there were no precursors!
Not gradually, based on accumulated mutations....but suddenly!




Jump to modern times.....still no explanation for the sudden appearance of new organisms with new body types.....

So Stephen Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, admits that Darwin must be incorrect:

Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"



And you say.....what?

And you're still cutting and pasting these phony "quotes"?

My goodness but your time at the Harun Yahya website has been a cult indoctrination.

1. I am unaware of the website you use.

2. The quote is totally accurate.



Why don't you attempt to confront the OP?

1. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.

2. Your "quotes" are edited, parsed and out if context.

Why don't you start yet another thread with the same phony "quotes" you have dumped into your last 5 threads.

 

[Steven_R]

As Darwin's thesis is presented in school sans any alternative nor critiques....well...then folk believe it as fact.
.

Schoolbooks for children and undergraduates rarely have any alternatives or critiques simply because by the time something has trickled down to a survey class level (any 1010 class) that thing is accepted as true. Being a watered down version of a 101 textbook, this also applies to schoolchildren's texts.

If you want something other than evolution in a kid's textbook, start by presenting peer reviewed journal articles and presenting papers at conferences. But the IDiot crowd can't do that because they have no science to back up their nonsense, so they want to skip right to the end.

What the Discotute want isn't science and it isn't a fair critique of science or analysis of evolution, regardless of what the Discotute says. What they want is to introduce doubt to children with nothing to hang that doubt on because there is no science to disprove a century and a half of evolutionary biology as a solid explanation for what happens in biology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And you're still cutting and pasting these phony "quotes"?

My goodness but your time at the Harun Yahya website has been a cult indoctrination.

1. I am unaware of the website you use.

2. The quote is totally accurate.



Why don't you attempt to confront the OP?

1. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.

2. Your "quotes" are edited, parsed and out if context.

Why don't you start yet another thread with the same phony "quotes" you have dumped into your last 5 threads.

Please don't hesitate to prove any errors in my quotes....
...else, you're merely a liar.


And check this out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326424-darwin-s-apparatchiks.html#post8206931

 

[Hollie]

1. I am unaware of the website you use.

2. The quote is totally accurate.



Why don't you attempt to confront the OP?

1. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.

2. Your "quotes" are edited, parsed and out if context.

Why don't you start yet another thread with the same phony "quotes" you have dumped into your last 5 threads.

Please don't hesitate to prove any errors in my quotes....
...else, you're merely a liar.


And check this out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326424-darwin-s-apparatchiks.html#post8206931

Why dont you walk us through your last 5 threads where I've delineated your phony "quotes".

You're merely a fraud and a liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As Darwin's thesis is presented in school sans any alternative nor critiques....well...then folk believe it as fact.
.

Schoolbooks for children and undergraduates rarely have any alternatives or critiques simply because by the time something has trickled down to a survey class level (any 1010 class) that thing is accepted as true. Being a watered down version of a 101 textbook, this also applies to schoolchildren's texts.

If you want something other than evolution in a kid's textbook, start by presenting peer reviewed journal articles and presenting papers at conferences. But the IDiot crowd can't do that because they have no science to back up their nonsense, so they want to skip right to the end.

What the Discotute want isn't science and it isn't a fair critique of science or analysis of evolution, regardless of what the Discotute says. What they want is to introduce doubt to children with nothing to hang that doubt on because there is no science to disprove a century and a half of evolutionary biology as a solid explanation for what happens in biology.

Darwin's theory isn't science.
It is thoroughly flawed...which is why your side is so fearful of allowing it to be debated.


While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."


Doesn't that make you wonder?



I hope you have time to read this....is will explain the prevalence of an unproven theory.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326424-darwin-s-apparatchiks.html#post8206931

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is a waste of bandwidth.

2. Your "quotes" are edited, parsed and out if context.

Why don't you start yet another thread with the same phony "quotes" you have dumped into your last 5 threads.

Please don't hesitate to prove any errors in my quotes....
...else, you're merely a liar.


And check this out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326424-darwin-s-apparatchiks.html#post8206931

Why dont you walk us through your last 5 threads where I've delineated your phony "quotes".

You're merely a fraud and a liar.

I've asked you numerous times to show where the quotes aren't accurate....

...and we both know you can't do that, both because they are accurate...and because you are basically mindless.


Now....again....how about trying to confront the OP?
You know....to prove you're not mindless.



And....I never lie.

 

[Hollie]

Please don't hesitate to prove any errors in my quotes....
...else, you're merely a liar.


And check this out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326424-darwin-s-apparatchiks.html#post8206931

Why dont you walk us through your last 5 threads where I've delineated your phony "quotes".

You're merely a fraud and a liar.

I've asked you numerous times to show where the quotes aren't accurate....

...and we both know you can't do that, both because they are accurate...and because you are basically mindless.


Now....again....how about trying to confront the OP?
You know....to prove you're not mindless.



And....I never lie.

You lie pathologically.

Once again.... walk us through your last 5 threads wherein your phony " quotes" were shown to be frauds.... to prove you're a fraud.

 

[Hollie]

As Darwin's thesis is presented in school sans any alternative nor critiques....well...then folk believe it as fact.
.

Schoolbooks for children and undergraduates rarely have any alternatives or critiques simply because by the time something has trickled down to a survey class level (any 1010 class) that thing is accepted as true. Being a watered down version of a 101 textbook, this also applies to schoolchildren's texts.

If you want something other than evolution in a kid's textbook, start by presenting peer reviewed journal articles and presenting papers at conferences. But the IDiot crowd can't do that because they have no science to back up their nonsense, so they want to skip right to the end.

What the Discotute want isn't science and it isn't a fair critique of science or analysis of evolution, regardless of what the Discotute says. What they want is to introduce doubt to children with nothing to hang that doubt on because there is no science to disprove a century and a half of evolutionary biology as a solid explanation for what happens in biology.

Darwin's theory isn't science.
It is thoroughly flawed...which is why your side is so fearful of allowing it to be debated.


While the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."


Doesn't that make you wonder?



I hope you have time to read this....is will explain the prevalence of an unproven theory.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326424-darwin-s-apparatchiks.html#post8206931

Darwin's theory isn't debated?

Try crawling out from under the blanket of fear and superstition at Harun Yahya.

 

[Sunshine]

I am fine with TOE, ID, creationism, natural selection, etc. being taught as competing theories/explanations.

But I oppose TOE being taught as an irrefutable scientific fact. .

I have never seen Evolution taught as fact. Nor have I seen it presented as fact in any biology textbook. (and my degree is in Secondary Ed/Comprehensive Sciences)

In fact, I too would object to it being taught as fact.

ID or creationism have no place in a science curriculum.

ID (Intelligent Design) is just as valid as TOE. .

[MENTION=11674]Sunni Man[/MENTION]

Science is moving away from the theory of natural selection for the reasons I stated. It simply does not account for the genetics involved. Darwin did not know that all of life is programed by genes to develop the way it does. Changes within species certainly makes sense under the theory of natural selection. The organism with the characteristic that is best suited for its environment is going to be the one that survives and procreates. But natural selection as to speciation fails when you bring in genetics.

Knowing what we know about genetics, natural selection would have to involve change at the genetic level, e.g. gain or loss of a gene which brings about mutation. Few things cause genetic mutations. Age and time are not two of those things. Radiation and chemicals are. Those things have been born out by survivors of nuclear power/weapons use and in our veterans from Vietnam whose progeny and they themselves have been the victims of genetic mutation secondary to chemicals like agent orange. Radiation I can easily envision if the earth's atmosphere were not always as protective as it is now, but I don't really think the reptiles of ages past were getting very high or dropping much agent orange. But those mutations do not elevate the species. They tend to disable or shorten life. Think spina bifida, and diabetes, and Parkinson's disease, three common ailments the first in their children and the second two in Vietnams themselves.

Science itself is evolving to account for the fact that Darwin didn't know jack shit about genetics.

We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient.

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:

1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
2. It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
3. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution

This is an interesting article. Those who religiously subscribe to Darwin's theory really need to avail themselves of some of the knowledge that came about since his own personal Dark Age.


Damn, I wish PC would stop forcing me to show my education. I much prefer just being the board bitch.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why dont you walk us through your last 5 threads where I've delineated your phony "quotes".

You're merely a fraud and a liar.

I've asked you numerous times to show where the quotes aren't accurate....

...and we both know you can't do that, both because they are accurate...and because you are basically mindless.


Now....again....how about trying to confront the OP?
You know....to prove you're not mindless.



And....I never lie.

You lie pathologically.

Once again.... walk us through your last 5 threads wherein your phony " quotes" were shown to be frauds.... to prove you're a fraud.

I prove time an again that you are both limited intellectually....and, due to that limitation, the liar.

Once more?

Go ahead and show where my quotes are not accurate.

I'm asked you to do so many times.....but you avoid same.

Why is that?

When will you attempt to confront the OP?

Never?




Everybody who loves you is wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have never seen Evolution taught as fact. Nor have I seen it presented as fact in any biology textbook. (and my degree is in Secondary Ed/Comprehensive Sciences)

In fact, I too would object to it being taught as fact.

ID or creationism have no place in a science curriculum.

ID (Intelligent Design) is just as valid as TOE. .

[MENTION=11674]Sunni Man[/MENTION]

Science is moving away from the theory of natural selection for the reasons I stated. It simply does not account for the genetics involved. Darwin did not know that all of life is programed by genes to develop the way it does. Changes within species certainly makes sense under the theory of natural selection. The organism with the characteristic that is best suited for its environment is going to be the one that survives and procreates. But natural selection as to speciation fails when you bring in genetics.

Knowing what we know about genetics, natural selection would have to involve change at the genetic level, e.g. gain or loss of a gene which brings about mutation. Few things cause genetic mutations. Age and time are not two of those things. Radiation and chemicals are. Those things have been born out by survivors of nuclear power/weapons use and in our veterans from Vietnam whose progeny and they themselves have been the victims of genetic mutation secondary to chemicals like agent orange. Radiation I can easily envision if the earth's atmosphere were not always as protective as it is now, but I don't really think the reptiles of ages past were getting very high or dropping much agent orange. But those mutations do not elevate the species. They tend to disable or shorten life. Think spina bifida, and diabetes, and Parkinson's disease, three common ailments the first in their children and the second two in Vietnams themselves.

Science itself is evolving to account for the fact that Darwin didn't know jack shit about genetics.

We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient.

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:

1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
2. It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
3. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution

This is an interesting article. Those who religiously subscribe to Darwin's theory really need to avail themselves of some of the knowledge that came about since his own personal Dark Age.


Damn, I wish PC would stop forcing me to show my education. I much prefer just being the board bitch.

I love it!



I read this....

Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly:
"The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).
Werner Gitt, "In the Beginning Was Information," 2nd edition p. 88.



Imagine Marx rolling over in his grave, reading this: "A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]"

 

[Sunshine]

I love it!



I read this....

Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly:
"The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).
Werner Gitt, "In the Beginning Was Information," 2nd edition p. 88.



Imagine Marx rolling over in his grave, reading this: "A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]"

Biogenesis says that life only comes from life. We are ALL taught that before we are taught natural selection. SOME of us actually remember that particular lecture! LOL. Darwin lived in the time when abiogenesis (spontaneous generation of life from the non living) was a common belief. Science frowned upon the people of the 1800s as ignorant fools for believing this and then accepted Darwinism which could only be possible if it abiogenesis were true. Go figure. It does appear they are getting their heads out of their collective asses. Slowly. Unlike those on this forum who have accepted Darwinism as a religion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lordy, lordy. Well, PC, why don't you just take your wonderful silliness down to the many universities in this nation and enlighten those poor benighted biologists.

Check this out, pal.....


http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326424-darwin-s-apparatchiks.html#post8206931