Darwin: Far From Science

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Amazing how much you bring to a thread......not.

 

[cnm]

Science = communism. You heard it here.

I understand it all now.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.

You are still lying, but that is what cons do.

Is there a real conservative out there? He needs help. A LOT OF IT

 

[cnm]

I am unmoved. Fools like you declare victory always. Funny how you think you win every battle, despite losing the war 100 years ago.

Self declared victory is best victory...

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You are still lying, but that is what cons do.

Is there a real conservative out there? He needs help. A LOT OF IT

I hate to be redundant....but I need the fun of showing you up....

Sooooo........where's the lie, monkey?

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.

You are still lying, but that is what cons do.

Is there a real conservative out there? He needs help. A LOT OF IT

I hate to be redundant....but I need the fun of showing you up....

Sooooo........where's the lie, monkey?

Your lies are all throughout this thread. Your lie in question is in my post #64. Darwin: Far From Science

It is your turn to really impress me. Tell me about the current evolutionary theory. Prove you "know" what you are lying about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You are still lying, but that is what cons do.

Is there a real conservative out there? He needs help. A LOT OF IT

I hate to be redundant....but I need the fun of showing you up....

Sooooo........where's the lie, monkey?

Your lies are all throughout this thread. Your lie in question is in my post #64. Darwin: Far From Science

It is your turn to really impress me. Tell me about the current evolutionary theory. Prove you "know" what you are lying about.

Let's check, monkey boy....you write this:

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.


You've really outed yourself as the liar I said you are: there is only one theory at issue in the entire thread.



"Evolution is as close to a fact as science allows."

Watch me smash this custard pie in your kisser: Remember when I wrote this?

.... the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,' in order for a theory to be accepted.


Darwin's theory is not science at all.
It's the politics of the Left.
There are no experiments documenting the change of one species to another, nor producing a new species.

And....the fossil record does not have evidence of same....as Darwin himself admitted.



Soooo....time for you to admit you're a lying imbecile?

G'head....confession is good for the soul.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.

You are still lying, but that is what cons do.

Is there a real conservative out there? He needs help. A LOT OF IT

I hate to be redundant....but I need the fun of showing you up....

Sooooo........where's the lie, monkey?

Your lies are all throughout this thread. Your lie in question is in my post #64. Darwin: Far From Science

It is your turn to really impress me. Tell me about the current evolutionary theory. Prove you "know" what you are lying about.

Let's check, monkey boy....you write this:

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.


You've really outed yourself as the liar I said you are: there is only one theory at issue in the entire thread.

Your reply should have started with "Yes, you are correct. I did lie, sorry."

"Evolution is as close to a fact as science allows."

Watch me smash this custard pie in your kisser: Remember when I wrote this?

.... the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,' in order for a theory to be accepted.


Darwin's theory is not science at all.
It's the politics of the Left.
There are no experiments documenting the change of one species to another, nor producing a new species.

And....the fossil record does not have evidence of same....as Darwin himself admitted.



Soooo....time for you to admit you're a lying imbecile?

G'head....confession is good for the soul.

Your lie #2

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

That makes you a liar, doesn't it.

You are still lying, but that is what cons do.

Is there a real conservative out there? He needs help. A LOT OF IT

I hate to be redundant....but I need the fun of showing you up....

Sooooo........where's the lie, monkey?

Your lies are all throughout this thread. Your lie in question is in my post #64. Darwin: Far From Science

It is your turn to really impress me. Tell me about the current evolutionary theory. Prove you "know" what you are lying about.

Let's check, monkey boy....you write this:

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.


You've really outed yourself as the liar I said you are: there is only one theory at issue in the entire thread.

Your reply should have started with "Yes, you are correct. I did lie, sorry."

"Evolution is as close to a fact as science allows."

Watch me smash this custard pie in your kisser: Remember when I wrote this?

.... the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,' in order for a theory to be accepted.


Darwin's theory is not science at all.
It's the politics of the Left.
There are no experiments documenting the change of one species to another, nor producing a new species.

And....the fossil record does not have evidence of same....as Darwin himself admitted.



Soooo....time for you to admit you're a lying imbecile?

G'head....confession is good for the soul.

Your lie #2

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia

Except that is not evolution....no new species formed.


OK.....here's the lesson you're begging for:

Darwin's theory is eminently simply to state: the accumulation of tiny, random mutations, accumulate until a species is so altered that it can be recognized as a new species.

One 'red flag' to all should be that, in over a century and a half, " 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.


But confusion of what speciation is has led to numerous false claims by Darwin enthusiasts. So....


1. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.

2. Darwin proposed an idea that changes in organisms occur naturally, and if the changes are helpful to the survival of the organism....they are passed on to progeny. If enough changes accumulate so that the resulting organism is actually unable to reproduce with the original.....that would be a new species.

But....Darwin knew that the changes had to be tiny, as breeders has known for eons. Or else:

a. "Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that’s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

3. So, "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."

speciation definition

The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. I've given the imbeciles chance after chance to find any lies, errors or inaccuracies in the thread.


Nada.



Sooooo.....as there is not a single error or incorrect statement in the thread, the argument against Darwin's theory......how do you Liberals feel now if you've been tricked into accepting it as 'fact'?




Sadly, for many, the indoctrination is indelible....and the facts will make nary a difference.

If you're a Liberal, and you can't dispute what runs counter to your programming....you'll simple ignore it.

...and maybe claim that the one providing the view that smashes what you've been ordered to believe is a racist, rightwinger, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, ....or whatever the insult du jour is.





The Left has been using that method for decades... The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,” “yell ‘McCarthyism!”

Same ploy, different day.




In summary:

a. Darwin's theory is valuable to Marxists, Liberals, Leftists as a weapon against belief, religion, and morality.


b. Far from a 'fact,' the theory has no proof to its credit, and, in reality, there are many observations that run counter to the 'theory.'


c. There is no proof of Darwinian evolution...yet it is taught as though it is a proven fact.


QED....Darwin's theory is political, not scientific.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You are still lying, but that is what cons do.

Is there a real conservative out there? He needs help. A LOT OF IT

I hate to be redundant....but I need the fun of showing you up....

Sooooo........where's the lie, monkey?

Your lies are all throughout this thread. Your lie in question is in my post #64. Darwin: Far From Science

It is your turn to really impress me. Tell me about the current evolutionary theory. Prove you "know" what you are lying about.

Let's check, monkey boy....you write this:

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.


You've really outed yourself as the liar I said you are: there is only one theory at issue in the entire thread.

Your reply should have started with "Yes, you are correct. I did lie, sorry."

"Evolution is as close to a fact as science allows."

Watch me smash this custard pie in your kisser: Remember when I wrote this?

.... the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,' in order for a theory to be accepted.


Darwin's theory is not science at all.
It's the politics of the Left.
There are no experiments documenting the change of one species to another, nor producing a new species.

And....the fossil record does not have evidence of same....as Darwin himself admitted.



Soooo....time for you to admit you're a lying imbecile?

G'head....confession is good for the soul.

Your lie #2

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia

Except that is not evolution....no new species formed.


OK.....here's the lesson you're begging for:

Darwin's theory is eminently simply to state: the accumulation of tiny, random mutations, accumulate until a species is so altered that it can be recognized as a new species.

One 'red flag' to all should be that, in over a century and a half, " 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.


But confusion of what speciation is has led to numerous false claims by Darwin enthusiasts. So....


1. In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.

2. Darwin proposed an idea that changes in organisms occur naturally, and if the changes are helpful to the survival of the organism....they are passed on to progeny. If enough changes accumulate so that the resulting organism is actually unable to reproduce with the original.....that would be a new species.

But....Darwin knew that the changes had to be tiny, as breeders has known for eons. Or else:

a. "Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that’s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

3. So, "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."

speciation definition

The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."

Except that is not evolution....no new species formed.

Evolution
Home » Evolution

Definition

noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

Evolution - Biology-Online Dictionary

You have no clue

Speciation - Wikipedia

Speciation is a subset of evolution

 

[MarkDuffy]

Prediction 5.6: Speciations
The standard phylogenetic tree illustrates countless speciation events; each common ancestor also represents at least one speciation event. Thus we should be able to observe actual speciation, if even only very rarely. Current estimates from the fossil record and measured mutational rates place the time required for full reproductive isolation in the wild at ~3 million years on average (Futuyma 1998, p. 510). Consequently, observation of speciation in nature should be a possible but rare phenomenon. However, evolutionary rates in laboratory organisms can be much more rapid than rates inferred from the fossil record, so it is still possible that speciation may be observed in common lab organisms (Gingerich 1983).

Confirmation:
Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.

Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian et al. 2000).

More detail and many references are given in the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

 

[MarkDuffy]

Conservatives have tried to make science political, that I will admit

 

[ScienceRocks]

Evolution is nearly the entire support for biology. To attack evolution with your dumb faith is to attack the entire science of biology.

You're speaking voodoo.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Conservatives have tried to make science political, that I will admit

It is like debating the taliban or isis. They're the same general thing and they hold faith above all else. Critical thought has been wiped from their minds as they're puppets.

 

[ScienceRocks]

And Darwin is the very thing science is all about. real evidenced and critcal thinking that led to the development of a theory that has stood the test of time.

Politicalchick is such a dumb bitch that she doesn't realize that her religious trash has no basis in reality and she'd probably end up in the kitchen barefoot if she got her way.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

PC, you have never, ever, brought anything to the table other than willful ignorance and dishonesty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh joy, another fun thread!

It would be fun, in the intellectual sense, if you could bring something to the table.

Your post reveals quite the opposite.

PC, you have never, ever, brought anything to the table other than willful ignorance and dishonesty.

"PC, you have never, ever, brought anything to the table other than willful ignorance and dishonesty."


Let's check.

This is what I brought to the table in this thread alone......

....are you able to dispute, refute, deny.....any......ANY....of it?

If not, you're simply a lying windbag and should change your avi to same.



Here ya' go:

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?



Speak up, you LYING WINDBAG!!!

 

[theHawk]

Science = communism. You heard it here.

Wrong. Lies = Communism.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Science = communism. You heard it here.

Evolution isnt science