Darwin: Far From Science

[PoliticalChic]

Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

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





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

Damn you are dumb. It is not my job to sort out your assault on logic and the English language, nor do I feel any need to do so. Again, you are free to stand outside and smack your head against the window all you like. Your self-serving stream of bullshit has zero effect on anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

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





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

Damn you are dumb. It is not my job to sort out your assault on logic and the English language, nor do I feel any need to do so. Again, you are free to stand outside and smack your head against the window all you like. Your self-serving stream of bullshit has zero effect on anything.

The thread stated

a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "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."

i. ....many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day.... with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

j. ...even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."

k. ...we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.
That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.





Now....was there any of the above that an imbecile like you is prepared to deny?
Or....is Darwin's theory still a 'fact'????

Speak up, moron!!!

 

[MarkDuffy]

Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Liar

Evolution is as close to a fact as science allows. You keep dishonestly arguing against "Darwin's theory" that no longer exists.

Nowhere in post #18 is the word Darwin

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Liar

Of course he is lying. He is a dishonest, vile little person who treats us to a smelly stream of constant free-association and fallacy. That was what I wrote about evolutionary theory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Liar

Where's the lie, monkey?


When you check post #18, you'll see that the only liar here is you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Liar

Of course he is lying. He is a dishonest, vile little person who treats us to a smelly stream of constant free-association and fallacy. That was what I wrote about evolutionary theory.

Ohhhhhh.....so you admit that that is what you wrote.


This:
In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Excellent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Liar

Of course he is lying. He is a dishonest, vile little person who treats us to a smelly stream of constant free-association and fallacy. That was what I wrote about evolutionary theory.

Ohhhhhh.....so you admit that that is what you wrote.


This:
In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Excellent.

yes, i wrote it about evolutionary theory, which has progressed beyond Darwin's first theory. And you tried to misrepresent me so that you could create a false contradiction. And you use these weak, transparent charlatan's tactics, because you are a dishonest fraud who knows less than nothing about evolution, and you have no other tools at your disposal.


No, you have not mounted any actual challenge to accepted theories. yes, you are embarrassing yourself. yes, there is a reason that the pinnacle of your achievement in this embarrassing effort will be to anonymously post on internet forums, where nobody can laugh you out of the room. Enjoy your lot in life... this is it, and it's not getting any better for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Liar

Of course he is lying. He is a dishonest, vile little person who treats us to a smelly stream of constant free-association and fallacy. That was what I wrote about evolutionary theory.

".... fallacy."

You proved that everything I posted is true and accurate by being unable to dispute any of this"

The thread stated
a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "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."



i. ....many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day.... with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j. ...even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."



k. ...we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.
That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?





Any "fallacy" in there?

Of not.....you'll prove it in your next post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Liar

Of course he is lying. He is a dishonest, vile little person who treats us to a smelly stream of constant free-association and fallacy. That was what I wrote about evolutionary theory.

Ohhhhhh.....so you admit that that is what you wrote.


This:
In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Excellent.

yes, i wrote it about evolutionary theory, which has progressed beyond Darwin's first theory. And you tried to misrepresent me so that you could create a false contradiction. And you use these weak, transparent charlatan's tactics, because you are a dishonest liar who knows less than nothing about evolution, and you have no other tools at your disposal.

"...has progressed beyond Darwin's first theory. "

Put your Dinaro where you put your dinner, you imbecile: what's the new theory.....????


Cat got your tongue????



And.....I've quoted you accurately:
"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, look who is poising to declare victory.... again. Strange, all of your victories are "piling up", yet you are still a deviant hack who gets scraped off of a scientist's shoe. I wonder if your victories are just imagined?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Liar

Of course he is lying. He is a dishonest, vile little person who treats us to a smelly stream of constant free-association and fallacy. That was what I wrote about evolutionary theory.

Now....where are those 'fallacies' you claimed?


You were lying, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Liar

Where's the lie, monkey?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you just tell yourself whatever you like. we both know that is what you are going to do, anyway. I mean, if a moron with no knowledge or experience in this topic can somehow convince himself he has outsmarted the global scientific community.... well, then that moron can pretty much convince himself of anything.

 

[Syriusly]

Another of PC's idiotic threads about....well about his obsession with everything.

God she is an idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

you just tell yourself whatever you like. we both know that is what you are going to do, anyway. I mean, if a moron with no knowledge or experience in this topic can somehow convince himself he has outsmarted the global scientific community.... well, then that moron can pretty much convince himself of anything.

You claimed Darwin's theory was a fact.

I showed that it is neither proven, nor scientific.

You claimed there was a new theory...but couldn't come up with one.

You said I posted fallacies.....but couldn't find any.


Here's the truth:
Everything I post is 100% true, accurate and correct....but you are so far gone in you indoctrination that you will never be able to find your way back to rectitude or knowledge.

Sad, but true.


I was just having fun slappin' you around.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another of PC's idiotic threads about....well about his obsession with everything.

God she is an idiot.

OK....I know it's gilding the lily, but let's prove what a dunce you are.


The thread stated the following:

a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.

b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.

c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.

d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.

e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."

f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.


g. the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'


h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "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."



i. ....many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day.... with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.


j. ...even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."



k. ...we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.
That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...

And...noted that scientific proof of Darwin's theory is the Litmus Test.


Now....was there any of the above that a moron like you is prepared to deny?

 

[MarkDuffy]

Soooo.....we can agree that your attempt to change the subject indicates that, as is always the case.....every single thing in the OP is 100% correct, accurate and true?

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Liar

Of course he is lying. He is a dishonest, vile little person who treats us to a smelly stream of constant free-association and fallacy. That was what I wrote about evolutionary theory.

He obviously is another conservative with an opiate problem, bigly.

An analogy would be him arguing against atomic physics cuz the very first theory was that atoms were solid spheres.

But his insanity goes farther. He also claims that evolution is a communist and authoritarian socialist conspiracy theory against America itself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Some dunce contributed this to a thread dealing with Darwinian evolution...."the majority of scientists say it's a fact!"
Clearly, no clue about what science is....must be a Hillary voter.
Let's review...for the purpose of separating fact from conjecture:


1. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.

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

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view taught in government schools, and by the secular media.




2. Believers point to the most basic of fact: there is life on earth, most specifically a form that differs qualitatively from every other form. There's no denying 'life,' and, logically, as our Founders posited, a Creator of said life.


a. Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

b. In an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), Wallace [co-inventor of Darwinism] outlined his sense that evolution was inadequate to explain certain obvious features of the human race.

Certain of our "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection. These characteristics include the human brain, the organs of speech and articulation, the human hand, and the external human form with its upright posture and bipedal gait. Thus, only human beings can rotate their thumbs and ring fingers in what is called "ulnar opposition" in order to achieve a grip, a grasp, and a degree of torque denied to any of the great apes. So, too, with the other items on Wallace's list. What remains is evolutionary fantasy, of the sort in which the bipedal gait is assigned to an unrecoverable ancestor wishing to peer (or pee) over tall savannah grasses.
The Best Spiritual Writing 2010



3. If the Left can alter the focus from a Creator to some scientifically provable event that they can show in a laboratory, well....that would go far to end the belief in God.

Enter Charles Darwin. Simply put, Darwin posits changes- after life has begun on earth- from the simplest to more and more complex organisms, based on adaptations that enhance competitiveness.

Finally, ending with Homo sapiens.

Of course, that first and pre-eminent step, creating life, is omitted.


a. 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.


Every atheist and/or Marxist....communists, Liberals, whatever....was overjoyed to switch the focus of the origin of life, and diversity, from religion to some iteration of science.


"Whoopeee!" Now we can prove that no 'god' is necessary, and man, in the form of Leftists, can be god!"


But....not so fast.
Coming up next.....

How high is up?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, your lack of reading comprehension skills really doesn't mean anything.

Clearly this delusional person is perfectly content with just telling himself that we agree with him, whether it's true or not.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."


Soooo....since government schools imply that Darwin's theory is proven, and have convinced our resident imbecile....there must be examples of new species formed in the laboratory....or observed in nature...right?

Nope.


a. "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.



Well....politically, maybe:

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will."
Leon Trotsky


BTW.....wanna see the relationship between Marxism and Liberalism? Hillary Clinton said the same thing as Trotsky.




b. New species in the lab? Nope.

One evolutionist, Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired magazine and chairman of the All Species Foundation, describes this:

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.

That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation…

In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





Sooooo......if there is zero proof of Darwin's theory....not in the fossil record, not in the laboratory,......

...why do imbeciles claim that it is a fact???





Oh....right.....because they are imbeciles.

7. In post #18, some imbecile (guess who) wrote this about Darwin's theory:

"It's a scientific theory. And it's a theory now considered "fact" , because it has already been litigated by scientists who have dedicated their lives to science."

Liar

Of course he is lying. He is a dishonest, vile little person who treats us to a smelly stream of constant free-association and fallacy. That was what I wrote about evolutionary theory.

He obviously is another conservative with an opiate problem, bigly.

An analogy would be him arguing against atomic physics cuz the very first theory was that atoms were solid spheres.

But his insanity goes farther. He also claims that evolution is a communist and authoritarian socialist conspiracy theory against America itself.

I made you back down from claiming that I lied, huh?

That makes you a liar, doesn't it.