Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Since none of our Darwinists seem up to the job.....let me help.
One of the most recent theories of evolution is that of Masatoshi Nei, called "Mutation-Driven Evolution."
From Amazon:
"...a new mechanistic theory of mutation-driven evolution based on recent advances in genomics and evolutionary developmental biology. The theory asserts, perhaps somewhat controversially, that the driving force behind evolution is mutation, with natural selection being of only secondary importance. The word 'mutation' is used to describe any kind of change in DNA such as nucleotide substitution, gene duplication/deletion, chromosomal change, and genome duplication."
Mutation-Driven Evolution: Masatoshi Nei: 9780199661732: Amazon.com: Books
Did you see this phrase: "....perhaps somewhat controversially...."
That's the 'uh oh.'
There is no universally accepted evolution theory.
Guess why.
Anyone what to guess why so many spring to the defense of evolution....when there is no proof?
What do you mean not up to the job? I answered your question quite simply. Yes it's true that there is no universally accepted evolutionary theory, that in no way means that evolution is false. This is a new theory as to what drives evolution, it's still true that life evolves it just means that there is some debate as to why. No one is saying animals don't evolve except the creationists.
..."it's still true that life evolves it just means that there is some debate as to why."
Actually there is no such proof.
If there are no examples of one species changing to another, evolution is no less based on faith than is any religion.
What do you mean not up to the job? I answered your question quite simply. Yes it's true that there is no universally accepted evolutionary theory, that in no way means that evolution is false. This is a new theory as to what drives evolution, it's still true that life evolves it just means that there is some debate as to why. No one is saying animals don't evolve except the creationists.
..."it's still true that life evolves it just means that there is some debate as to why."
Actually there is no such proof.
If there are no examples of one species changing to another, evolution is no less based on faith than is any religion.
You misunderstand evolution. No one is saying that one species evolves into another. There are PLENTY of examples of evolution; antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one. Evolution is not based on faith, evolution is based on observation of fact. One sees that the staphylococcus aurius bacteria evolved to become resistant to methicillin which had been used to fight it. There is no fath involved in that.
Best way to raise the blood pressure of a secular-science advocate is to criticize Darwin.
PC seems to believe that no one here has ever read Stephen Jay Gould or Ernst Myer. That no one recognizes the fancy lies she is spewing with out of context quotes. It is useless to debate with her, she just comes back with the same nonsense in another thread.
And she just doesn't matter. Like the people still trying to convince people that the earth is flat, just someone to humor, never to take seriously.
Best way to raise the blood pressure of a secular-science advocate is to criticize Darwin.
Actually, one can't help but point and laugh at the religious fundies who cut and paste the same phony, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" that have been cut and pasted into multiple threads.
Why do you insist on cutting and pasting the same nonsense you cull from Harun Yahya?
PC seems to believe that no one here has ever read Stephen Jay Gould or Ernst Myer. That no one recognizes the fancy lies she is spewing with out of context quotes. It is useless to debate with her, she just comes back with the same nonsense in another thread.
And she just doesn't matter. Like the people still trying to convince people that the earth is flat, just someone to humor, never to take seriously.
One sees that the staphylococcus aurius bacteria evolved to become resistant to methicillin which had been used to fight it.
PC seems to believe that no one here has ever read Stephen Jay Gould or Ernst Myer. That no one recognizes the fancy lies she is spewing with out of context quotes. It is useless to debate with her, she just comes back with the same nonsense in another thread.
And she just doesn't matter. Like the people still trying to convince people that the earth is flat, just someone to humor, never to take seriously.
PC delights that she can tie you up in an earth is flat argument while dancing around and ignoring logic
One sees that the staphylococcus aurius bacteria evolved to become resistant to methicillin which had been used to fight it.
She's not going to be able to deal with this in an honest way, because she fears what she does not understand thus vehemently builds a bubble of untruth for safety.
Much to her chagrin, no one even WANTS to see her try to deal with that quoted portion of your post, either. It's just going to be more retard.
pc, reading a lot is one thing. Interpreting and applying are also supposed to come along with that. The pattern of your OP's is that you're an epic failure at interpreting what you read correctly, and applying it in the real world. The reading in bulk alone is not at all helping you.
One sees that the staphylococcus aurius bacteria evolved to become resistant to methicillin which had been used to fight it.
She's not going to be able to deal with this in an honest way, because she fears what she does not understand thus vehemently builds a bubble of untruth for safety.
Much to her chagrin, no one even WANTS to see her try to deal with that quoted portion of your post, either. It's just going to be more retard.
pc, reading a lot is one thing. Interpreting and applying are also supposed to come along with that. The pattern of your OP's is that you're an epic failure at interpreting what you read correctly, and applying it in the real world. The reading in bulk alone is not at all helping you.
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164
Did you recognize the name "Charles Darwin"?
She's not going to be able to deal with this in an honest way, because she fears what she does not understand thus vehemently builds a bubble of untruth for safety.
Much to her chagrin, no one even WANTS to see her try to deal with that quoted portion of your post, either. It's just going to be more retard.
pc, reading a lot is one thing. Interpreting and applying are also supposed to come along with that. The pattern of your OP's is that you're an epic failure at interpreting what you read correctly, and applying it in the real world. The reading in bulk alone is not at all helping you.
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164
Did you recognize the name "Charles Darwin"?
Do you recognize that evolution is proven, and it is proven all of the time, and an example of where it is proven is in this very thread?
No? I didn't think so. It's your comprehension issues. Less quantity, more quality. You understand science about as well as Michael Jackson's surgeon understood beauty.
One sees that the staphylococcus aurius bacteria evolved to become resistant to methicillin which had been used to fight it.
She's not going to be able to deal with this in an honest way, because she fears what she does not understand thus vehemently builds a bubble of untruth for safety.
Much to her chagrin, no one even WANTS to see her try to deal with that quoted portion of your post, either. It's just going to be more retard.
pc, reading a lot is one thing. Interpreting and applying are also supposed to come along with that. The pattern of your OP's is that you're an epic failure at interpreting what you read correctly, and applying it in the real world. The reading in bulk alone is not at all helping you.
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164
Did you recognize the name "Charles Darwin"?
She's not going to be able to deal with this in an honest way, because she fears what she does not understand thus vehemently builds a bubble of untruth for safety.
Much to her chagrin, no one even WANTS to see her try to deal with that quoted portion of your post, either. It's just going to be more retard.
pc, reading a lot is one thing. Interpreting and applying are also supposed to come along with that. The pattern of your OP's is that you're an epic failure at interpreting what you read correctly, and applying it in the real world. The reading in bulk alone is not at all helping you.
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164
Did you recognize the name "Charles Darwin"?
Do you recognize that in Darwin's time not even 1% of the fossils that are known today had been found? None of our ancestors fossils, no Ediacarian fossils, the Karoo assemblage had not been collected, and nobody had any idea of some of the extinction periods prior to the Cambrian. If I am following a trail of an animal in the woods, I don't have to see every track to do that. Or even every fifth track.
Evolution, both by the evidence in genetics and by the fossil record has evidence for the theory beyond a reasonable doubt.
Scientific theory = / = theory.
One sees that the staphylococcus aurius bacteria evolved to become resistant to methicillin which had been used to fight it.
They observe micro organisms evolving each day, in the lab. The reason they deal in simple-celled organisms when recreating evolution in a laboratory setting is pretty obvious. Do you know what that reason might be, pea brain?
Mutation is the mechanism for evolution. Holy shit, you should not be talking science.
Just, stop it.
