Darwin: Fossils or Fruit Flies?

[PoliticalChic]

Sigh...

Fraud.

 

[Hollie]

Sigh...

Fraud.

The only fraud is your consistent pattern of posting phony, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" you cut and paste from fundamentalist websites.

Hack.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thanks so much for the family photos.

Your simian countenance suggests a heritage unusually rich in species diversity.

The very first debate on Darwin's Theory was settled in favor of Darwin because of a comment just like what you have made, PC.

1860 Oxford evolution debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1860 Oxford evolution debate took place at the Oxford University Museum in Oxford, England, on 30 June 1860, seven months after the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.[1] Several prominent British scientists and philosophers participated, including Thomas Henry Huxley, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, Benjamin Brodie, Joseph Dalton Hooker and Robert FitzRoy.[1] The debate is best remembered today for a heated exchange in which Wilberforce supposedly asked Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey.[2]

Huxley is said to have replied that he would not be ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor, but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth.[2] One eyewitness suggests that Wilberforce's question to Huxley may have been "whether, in the vast shaky state of the law of development, as laid down by Darwin, any one can be so enamoured of this so-called law, or hypothesis, as to go into jubilation for his great great grandfather having been an ape or a gorilla?",[3] whereas another suggests he may have said that "it was of little consequence to himself whether or not his grandfather might be called a monkey or not."[4]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sigh...

Fraud.

The only fraud is your consistent pattern of posting phony, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" you cut and paste from fundamentalist websites.

Hack.

No examples of phony, 'edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes"'.....

.....means you're lying again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Thanks so much for the family photos.

Your simian countenance suggests a heritage unusually rich in species diversity.

The very first debate on Darwin's Theory was settled in favor of Darwin because of a comment just like what you have made, PC.

1860 Oxford evolution debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1860 Oxford evolution debate took place at the Oxford University Museum in Oxford, England, on 30 June 1860, seven months after the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.[1] Several prominent British scientists and philosophers participated, including Thomas Henry Huxley, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, Benjamin Brodie, Joseph Dalton Hooker and Robert FitzRoy.[1] The debate is best remembered today for a heated exchange in which Wilberforce supposedly asked Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey.[2]

Huxley is said to have replied that he would not be ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor, but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth.[2] One eyewitness suggests that Wilberforce's question to Huxley may have been "whether, in the vast shaky state of the law of development, as laid down by Darwin, any one can be so enamoured of this so-called law, or hypothesis, as to go into jubilation for his great great grandfather having been an ape or a gorilla?",[3] whereas another suggests he may have said that "it was of little consequence to himself whether or not his grandfather might be called a monkey or not."[4]

Hi, Rocks!


Hey....I saw that your pals the Bureau of Land Management eco-fascists took a spanking this week, huh?


Did you drop 'em a note of condolence?






BTW....your link?

Nonsense.

You see, science is based on evidence, not anecdotes.

 

[Hollie]

Fraud.

The only fraud is your consistent pattern of posting phony, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" you cut and paste from fundamentalist websites.

Hack.

No examples of phony, 'edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes"'.....

.....means you're lying again.

No examples... other than the prior examples of your fraudulent, edited, parsed and phony "quotes" stolen from fundamentalist websites.

You're a liar and a fraud.

 

[Hollie]

Thanks so much for the family photos.

Your simian countenance suggests a heritage unusually rich in species diversity.

The very first debate on Darwin's Theory was settled in favor of Darwin because of a comment just like what you have made, PC.

1860 Oxford evolution debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1860 Oxford evolution debate took place at the Oxford University Museum in Oxford, England, on 30 June 1860, seven months after the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.[1] Several prominent British scientists and philosophers participated, including Thomas Henry Huxley, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, Benjamin Brodie, Joseph Dalton Hooker and Robert FitzRoy.[1] The debate is best remembered today for a heated exchange in which Wilberforce supposedly asked Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey.[2]

Huxley is said to have replied that he would not be ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor, but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth.[2] One eyewitness suggests that Wilberforce's question to Huxley may have been "whether, in the vast shaky state of the law of development, as laid down by Darwin, any one can be so enamoured of this so-called law, or hypothesis, as to go into jubilation for his great great grandfather having been an ape or a gorilla?",[3] whereas another suggests he may have said that "it was of little consequence to himself whether or not his grandfather might be called a monkey or not."[4]

Hi, Rocks!


Hey....I saw that your pals the Bureau of Land Management eco-fascists took a spanking this week, huh?


Did you drop 'em a note of condolence?






BTW....your link?

Nonsense.

You see, science is based on evidence, not anecdotes.

What a truly odd comment when many of your "quotes" relating to matters of science are stolen from Harun Yahya.

Anyone who has ever weed-whacked through the landscape of creationist invention has probably come across the blathering of "Harun Yahya" (whose real name is Adnan Oktar). Oktar is a failed college student who never studied science and eventually dropped out of college. This would account in large part for the staggering incompetence displayed in the "science" that he hopes to feed to the gullible and the ignorant..

 

[PoliticalChic]

The only fraud is your consistent pattern of posting phony, edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes" you cut and paste from fundamentalist websites.

Hack.

No examples of phony, 'edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes"'.....

.....means you're lying again.

No examples... other than the prior examples of your fraudulent, edited, parsed and phony "quotes" stolen from fundamentalist websites.

You're a liar and a fraud.

"No examples... "

The first honest thing you've posted!


So....we agree: everything I've posted is undeniably true!


Carry on.

 

[dilloduck]

The very first debate on Darwin's Theory was settled in favor of Darwin because of a comment just like what you have made, PC.

1860 Oxford evolution debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1860 Oxford evolution debate took place at the Oxford University Museum in Oxford, England, on 30 June 1860, seven months after the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.[1] Several prominent British scientists and philosophers participated, including Thomas Henry Huxley, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, Benjamin Brodie, Joseph Dalton Hooker and Robert FitzRoy.[1] The debate is best remembered today for a heated exchange in which Wilberforce supposedly asked Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey.[2]

Huxley is said to have replied that he would not be ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor, but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used his great gifts to obscure the truth.[2] One eyewitness suggests that Wilberforce's question to Huxley may have been "whether, in the vast shaky state of the law of development, as laid down by Darwin, any one can be so enamoured of this so-called law, or hypothesis, as to go into jubilation for his great great grandfather having been an ape or a gorilla?",[3] whereas another suggests he may have said that "it was of little consequence to himself whether or not his grandfather might be called a monkey or not."[4]

Hi, Rocks!


Hey....I saw that your pals the Bureau of Land Management eco-fascists took a spanking this week, huh?


Did you drop 'em a note of condolence?






BTW....your link?

Nonsense.

You see, science is based on evidence, not anecdotes.

What a truly odd comment when many of your "quotes" relating to matters of science are stolen from Harun Yahya.

Anyone who has ever weed-whacked through the landscape of creationist invention has probably come across the blathering of "Harun Yahya" (whose real name is Adnan Oktar). Oktar is a failed college student who never studied science and eventually dropped out of college. This would account in large part for the staggering incompetence displayed in the "science" that he hopes to feed to the gullible and the ignorant..

Even dropped out of college ? omg

 

[Hollie]

No examples of phony, 'edited, parsed and manufactured "quotes"'.....

.....means you're lying again.

No examples... other than the prior examples of your fraudulent, edited, parsed and phony "quotes" stolen from fundamentalist websites.

You're a liar and a fraud.

"No examples... "

The first honest thing you've posted!


So....we agree: everything I've posted is undeniably true!


Carry on.

Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you cut and paste from Harun Yahya have been exposed as fraudulent in the last 7 threads you have opened wherein you express your profound revulsion for knowledge and enlightenment.

Carry on....

 

[Hollie]

Hi, Rocks!


Hey....I saw that your pals the Bureau of Land Management eco-fascists took a spanking this week, huh?


Did you drop 'em a note of condolence?






BTW....your link?

Nonsense.

You see, science is based on evidence, not anecdotes.

What a truly odd comment when many of your "quotes" relating to matters of science are stolen from Harun Yahya.

Anyone who has ever weed-whacked through the landscape of creationist invention has probably come across the blathering of "Harun Yahya" (whose real name is Adnan Oktar). Oktar is a failed college student who never studied science and eventually dropped out of college. This would account in large part for the staggering incompetence displayed in the "science" that he hopes to feed to the gullible and the ignorant..

Even dropped out of college ? omg

...and never studied science.

Would you seek competent medical advise from someone who never studied medicine? Rattling bones, reading tea leaves or praying to the gawds has never been a reliable cure for illness.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No examples... other than the prior examples of your fraudulent, edited, parsed and phony "quotes" stolen from fundamentalist websites.

You're a liar and a fraud.

"No examples... "

The first honest thing you've posted!


So....we agree: everything I've posted is undeniably true!


Carry on.

Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you cut and paste from Harun Yahya have been exposed as fraudulent in the last 7 threads you have opened wherein you express your profound revulsion for knowledge and enlightenment.

Carry on....

"Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you cut and paste from Harun Yahya you cut and paste from Harun Yahya...."


No I haven't.


What I have done is prove that you are a fear-stricken liar, and I've done that by simply noting each and every time that you claim "Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that you provide same.


And you haven't.


What is the exact title of the mental illness of yours?

I might like to make the organization that fights same one of my charities.




Why are you so fearful of the truths that I provide?

As a matter of curiosity, could you pin-point for me the exact moment when your childhood ended and the hallucinations began?




Get well soon!

 

[Hollie]

"No examples... "

The first honest thing you've posted!


So....we agree: everything I've posted is undeniably true!


Carry on.

Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you cut and paste from Harun Yahya have been exposed as fraudulent in the last 7 threads you have opened wherein you express your profound revulsion for knowledge and enlightenment.

Carry on....

"Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you cut and paste from Harun Yahya you cut and paste from Harun Yahya...."


No I haven't.


What I have done is prove that you are a fear-stricken liar, and I've done that by simply noting each and every time that you claim "Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that you provide same.


And you haven't.


What is the exact title of the mental illness of yours?

I might like to make the organization that fights same one of my charities.




Why are you so fearful of the truths that I provide?

As a matter of curiosity, could you pin-point for me the exact moment when your childhood ended and the hallucinations began?




Get well soon!

Typical.

When your fraudulent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is exposed for the nonsense it is, you flail around like a child who has been scolded for bad behaviour and sent for a time- out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you cut and paste from Harun Yahya have been exposed as fraudulent in the last 7 threads you have opened wherein you express your profound revulsion for knowledge and enlightenment.

Carry on....

"Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you cut and paste from Harun Yahya you cut and paste from Harun Yahya...."


No I haven't.


What I have done is prove that you are a fear-stricken liar, and I've done that by simply noting each and every time that you claim "Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that you provide same.


And you haven't.


What is the exact title of the mental illness of yours?

I might like to make the organization that fights same one of my charities.




Why are you so fearful of the truths that I provide?

As a matter of curiosity, could you pin-point for me the exact moment when your childhood ended and the hallucinations began?




Get well soon!

Typical.

When your fraudulent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is exposed for the nonsense it is, you flail around like a child who has been scolded for bad behaviour and sent for a time- out.

"When your fraudulent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya...."


I love it!

This is like dealing with a trained seal.

I can make you repeat the same sounds over and over.



Hey....where are the examples?


Try again?
Here's the post: find any inaccuracies?


1. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.






2. So....if fossil evidence cannot be proof of Darwin's theory.....what is?

For many who subscribe to his view, they must, therefore, turn to the study of organic and molecular chemistry to 'prove' relationships.
The basics include DNA, RNA, and proteins made at the direction of the previous two.

3. One current hypothesis is that diversity is based, not on the DNA, i.e., genes, but on if, or how much of a gene's product is produced, so that "...evolutionary changes within this regulatory DNA lead to the diversity of form."
Sean Carroll, professor of molecular biology, genetics, and medical genetics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: A New Revolution in Biology," The Skeptical Inquirer, November-December, 2005, p. 48-53

According to this view, the same genes could produce different structures. This would eliminate the objections to Darwinism base on the impossibility of constructing different DNA for each new form.





4. Given as an example of 'the regulatory DNA theory' is the fruit fly with an extra pair of wings.
Let's see how this works: Fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, normally has a pair of wings, and a pair of 'balancers,' tiny appendages that stabilize the insect as it flies. But E.B. Lewis was able to produce mutations that produced four-winged fruit flies, and he showed this was due to regulation of gene producing the Ubx protein: if the Ubx protein is prevented, then 'balancers' become normal looking wings. A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila



5. Well, isn't this proof of the idea that evolutionary diversity could come from the same DNA?
Not really.
The wings don't work.
Why? Because only one part of the requirements exist: the muscles, tendons, etc., haven't formed.


Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this itself argues against Darwin's thesis. The functioning wing is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system which is necessary in order to allow proper functioning....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'- A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker, William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books
- involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.





So....for Darwin to be correct, distinct structures evolving prior to or in conjunction with, the fully-formed system must occur.

Or else it is not evolution.

"Evolution" is not simply the formation of one structure, organ, arrangement, or enzyme....it requires each in its exact timing event.




5. Let's not forget that the order of events is critical, and therefore limited by the timeframe.
Consider this complication: an entire system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity.

a. DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.&#8217
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



A new DNA section for each new structure in a system?
And each formed in the correct order?
Due to a totally random process?


b. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt&#8217. Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.





Shall I wait?



Do you want to admit that it is 100% spot on?

 

[Hollie]

"Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" you cut and paste from Harun Yahya you cut and paste from Harun Yahya...."


No I haven't.


What I have done is prove that you are a fear-stricken liar, and I've done that by simply noting each and every time that you claim "Edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that you provide same.


And you haven't.


What is the exact title of the mental illness of yours?

I might like to make the organization that fights same one of my charities.




Why are you so fearful of the truths that I provide?

As a matter of curiosity, could you pin-point for me the exact moment when your childhood ended and the hallucinations began?




Get well soon!

Typical.

When your fraudulent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is exposed for the nonsense it is, you flail around like a child who has been scolded for bad behaviour and sent for a time- out.

"When your fraudulent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya...."


I love it!

This is like dealing with a trained seal.

I can make you repeat the same sounds over and over.



Hey....where are the examples?


Try again?
Here's the post: find any inaccuracies?


1. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.






2. So....if fossil evidence cannot be proof of Darwin's theory.....what is?

For many who subscribe to his view, they must, therefore, turn to the study of organic and molecular chemistry to 'prove' relationships.
The basics include DNA, RNA, and proteins made at the direction of the previous two.

3. One current hypothesis is that diversity is based, not on the DNA, i.e., genes, but on if, or how much of a gene's product is produced, so that "...evolutionary changes within this regulatory DNA lead to the diversity of form."
Sean Carroll, professor of molecular biology, genetics, and medical genetics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: A New Revolution in Biology," The Skeptical Inquirer, November-December, 2005, p. 48-53

According to this view, the same genes could produce different structures. This would eliminate the objections to Darwinism base on the impossibility of constructing different DNA for each new form.





4. Given as an example of 'the regulatory DNA theory' is the fruit fly with an extra pair of wings.
Let's see how this works: Fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, normally has a pair of wings, and a pair of 'balancers,' tiny appendages that stabilize the insect as it flies. But E.B. Lewis was able to produce mutations that produced four-winged fruit flies, and he showed this was due to regulation of gene producing the Ubx protein: if the Ubx protein is prevented, then 'balancers' become normal looking wings. A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila



5. Well, isn't this proof of the idea that evolutionary diversity could come from the same DNA?
Not really.
The wings don't work.
Why? Because only one part of the requirements exist: the muscles, tendons, etc., haven't formed.


Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this itself argues against Darwin's thesis. The functioning wing is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system which is necessary in order to allow proper functioning....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'- A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker, William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books
- involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.





So....for Darwin to be correct, distinct structures evolving prior to or in conjunction with, the fully-formed system must occur.

Or else it is not evolution.

"Evolution" is not simply the formation of one structure, organ, arrangement, or enzyme....it requires each in its exact timing event.




5. Let's not forget that the order of events is critical, and therefore limited by the timeframe.
Consider this complication: an entire system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity.

a. DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



A new DNA section for each new structure in a system?
And each formed in the correct order?
Due to a totally random process?


b. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.





Shall I wait?



Do you want to admit that it is 100% spot on?

Speaking of trained seals, Harun Yahya groupies such as yourself are merely clones espousing the ignorance you cut and paste from those with an interest in your continued foolishness.

How's that workin' out for ya'?

 

[Hollie]

Anyone interested in the source of PC's "quote" from Henry Gee?

Harun Yahya

 

[PoliticalChic]

Typical.

When your fraudulent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is exposed for the nonsense it is, you flail around like a child who has been scolded for bad behaviour and sent for a time- out.

"When your fraudulent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya...."


I love it!

This is like dealing with a trained seal.

I can make you repeat the same sounds over and over.



Hey....where are the examples?


Try again?
Here's the post: find any inaccuracies?


1. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.






2. So....if fossil evidence cannot be proof of Darwin's theory.....what is?

For many who subscribe to his view, they must, therefore, turn to the study of organic and molecular chemistry to 'prove' relationships.
The basics include DNA, RNA, and proteins made at the direction of the previous two.

3. One current hypothesis is that diversity is based, not on the DNA, i.e., genes, but on if, or how much of a gene's product is produced, so that "...evolutionary changes within this regulatory DNA lead to the diversity of form."
Sean Carroll, professor of molecular biology, genetics, and medical genetics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: A New Revolution in Biology," The Skeptical Inquirer, November-December, 2005, p. 48-53

According to this view, the same genes could produce different structures. This would eliminate the objections to Darwinism base on the impossibility of constructing different DNA for each new form.





4. Given as an example of 'the regulatory DNA theory' is the fruit fly with an extra pair of wings.
Let's see how this works: Fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, normally has a pair of wings, and a pair of 'balancers,' tiny appendages that stabilize the insect as it flies. But E.B. Lewis was able to produce mutations that produced four-winged fruit flies, and he showed this was due to regulation of gene producing the Ubx protein: if the Ubx protein is prevented, then 'balancers' become normal looking wings. A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila



5. Well, isn't this proof of the idea that evolutionary diversity could come from the same DNA?
Not really.
The wings don't work.
Why? Because only one part of the requirements exist: the muscles, tendons, etc., haven't formed.


Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this itself argues against Darwin's thesis. The functioning wing is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system which is necessary in order to allow proper functioning....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'- A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker, William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books
- involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.





So....for Darwin to be correct, distinct structures evolving prior to or in conjunction with, the fully-formed system must occur.

Or else it is not evolution.

"Evolution" is not simply the formation of one structure, organ, arrangement, or enzyme....it requires each in its exact timing event.




5. Let's not forget that the order of events is critical, and therefore limited by the timeframe.
Consider this complication: an entire system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity.

a. DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



A new DNA section for each new structure in a system?
And each formed in the correct order?
Due to a totally random process?


b. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.





Shall I wait?



Do you want to admit that it is 100% spot on?

Speaking of trained seals, Harun Yahya groupies such as yourself are merely clones espousing the ignorance you cut and paste from those with an interest in your continued foolishness.

How's that workin' out for ya'?

You moron.


The question is whether or not the entire post is accurate and correct, not whether or not you can find parts in other places.



Do you want to admit that it is 100% spot on?

 

[Hollie]

"When your fraudulent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya...."


I love it!

This is like dealing with a trained seal.

I can make you repeat the same sounds over and over.



Hey....where are the examples?


Try again?
Here's the post: find any inaccuracies?


1. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.






2. So....if fossil evidence cannot be proof of Darwin's theory.....what is?

For many who subscribe to his view, they must, therefore, turn to the study of organic and molecular chemistry to 'prove' relationships.
The basics include DNA, RNA, and proteins made at the direction of the previous two.

3. One current hypothesis is that diversity is based, not on the DNA, i.e., genes, but on if, or how much of a gene's product is produced, so that "...evolutionary changes within this regulatory DNA lead to the diversity of form."
Sean Carroll, professor of molecular biology, genetics, and medical genetics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: A New Revolution in Biology," The Skeptical Inquirer, November-December, 2005, p. 48-53

According to this view, the same genes could produce different structures. This would eliminate the objections to Darwinism base on the impossibility of constructing different DNA for each new form.





4. Given as an example of 'the regulatory DNA theory' is the fruit fly with an extra pair of wings.
Let's see how this works: Fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, normally has a pair of wings, and a pair of 'balancers,' tiny appendages that stabilize the insect as it flies. But E.B. Lewis was able to produce mutations that produced four-winged fruit flies, and he showed this was due to regulation of gene producing the Ubx protein: if the Ubx protein is prevented, then 'balancers' become normal looking wings. A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila



5. Well, isn't this proof of the idea that evolutionary diversity could come from the same DNA?
Not really.
The wings don't work.
Why? Because only one part of the requirements exist: the muscles, tendons, etc., haven't formed.


Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this itself argues against Darwin's thesis. The functioning wing is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system which is necessary in order to allow proper functioning....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'- A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker, William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books
- involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.





So....for Darwin to be correct, distinct structures evolving prior to or in conjunction with, the fully-formed system must occur.

Or else it is not evolution.

"Evolution" is not simply the formation of one structure, organ, arrangement, or enzyme....it requires each in its exact timing event.




5. Let's not forget that the order of events is critical, and therefore limited by the timeframe.
Consider this complication: an entire system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity.

a. DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’7—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.’)
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? - creation.com



A new DNA section for each new structure in a system?
And each formed in the correct order?
Due to a totally random process?


b. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10 to the 50th power has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the ‘benefit of the doubt’). Any species known to us, including ‘the smallest single-cell bacteria,’ have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression)."
I.L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong," p. 205.





Shall I wait?



Do you want to admit that it is 100% spot on?

Speaking of trained seals, Harun Yahya groupies such as yourself are merely clones espousing the ignorance you cut and paste from those with an interest in your continued foolishness.

How's that workin' out for ya'?

You moron.


The question is whether or not the entire post is accurate and correct, not whether or not you can find parts in other places.



Do you want to admit that it is 100% spot on?

My goodness but you are the angry Harun Yahya groupie.

The question is why would you seek to impose your ignorance on others?

Parsed, edited, manufactured and out of context "quotes" only serve to promote your agenda of promoting lies and falsehoods.

Harun Yahya and people such as yourself are tagged with fraud label for good reason.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Speaking of trained seals, Harun Yahya groupies such as yourself are merely clones espousing the ignorance you cut and paste from those with an interest in your continued foolishness.

How's that workin' out for ya'?

You moron.


The question is whether or not the entire post is accurate and correct, not whether or not you can find parts in other places.



Do you want to admit that it is 100% spot on?

My goodness but you are the angry Harun Yahya groupie.

The question is why would you seek to impose your ignorance on others?

Parsed, edited, manufactured and out of context "quotes" only serve to promote your agenda of promoting lies and falsehoods.

Harun Yahya and people such as yourself are tagged with fraud label for good reason.

"Parsed, edited, manufactured and out of context "quotes" only serve to promote your agenda of promoting lies and falsehoods."


Well, then...why haven't you been able to find any?


So....you admit that it is 100% spot on?

 

[Hollie]

You moron.


The question is whether or not the entire post is accurate and correct, not whether or not you can find parts in other places.



Do you want to admit that it is 100% spot on?

My goodness but you are the angry Harun Yahya groupie.

The question is why would you seek to impose your ignorance on others?

Parsed, edited, manufactured and out of context "quotes" only serve to promote your agenda of promoting lies and falsehoods.

Harun Yahya and people such as yourself are tagged with fraud label for good reason.

"Parsed, edited, manufactured and out of context "quotes" only serve to promote your agenda of promoting lies and falsehoods."


Well, then...why haven't you been able to find any?


So....you admit that it is 100% spot on?

How sad.

You can't be honest with yourself or others and acknowledge that being a shill for Harun Yahya makes you an accomplice to fraud and promotion of ignorance.