Evolution or Darwin?

[G.T.]

Evolution requires the production of a new species different from the original, you moron.

saved so you can never edit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution requires the production of a new species different from the original, you moron.

saved so you can never edit.

....especially the last two words.

 

[PredFan]

..."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.

"You misunderstand evolution. No one is saying that one species evolves into another."

Up is down?

Really?


Evolution is exactly that...and explanation for the myriad of species extant, each "evolving" from previous species.

It is a theory designed based on just what you are trying to deny: one species changing into another based on the accumulation of minute changes in nucleic acids.



Your confusion is the only logical result of trying to defend the indefensible.



Ask yourself why you never posed the question to the acolytes of government schooling who indoctrinated you with same.





"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred....."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution



Why do you suppose the term 'inferred' is used instead of 'proven'??

C'mon.....think for yourself.

Well, we could go on about that but let's move on, ok evolution is the evolution of animals and plants from oner species to another. So then your' original statement is false. There is in fact proof of evolution all around us. I gave you one, the way that bacteria and viruses evolve to cause new diseases and evade old antibiotic attempts to kill them.

I didn't ask your questions from my teachers because I knew that the answers already.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Hmmm... that is the exact same tactics that liberals here use.

 

[PredFan]

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.

You have yet to find any lies.....sort of like the fact that you can't find proof of Darwin in the fossil record.....

Really? Why would you say that? There is plenty of proof of evolution in the fossil record. For instance, the evolution of the modern horse is almost complete in the fossil record.

 

[PredFan]

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"?

Do ytou understand that that doesn't disprove evolution even a little bit?

 

[PredFan]

"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.

If you had a mind, I might insult you for the lie.

If proven......why is it called a 'theory'?

Because it involves a lot more than simply one species suddenly giving birth to another species. All of the answers aren't quite known yet.

We saw the sun rise and set every day before we knew why, the sun still rose and set. We may not know everything about evolution yet but we can observe it and study evidence of it.

 

[PredFan]

"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.

When then, why the ineptitude from you folks in finding that evidence?

Where is it?

It is everywhere. One must only have open eyes.

 

[PredFan]

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?

See, you and I have this in common: the letter "i".....

I, for informed.....

...and you for ignorant.



Without the slightest hope of you actually learning....I will still inform:



1. You provided this, without giving credit to the source: "...One sees that the staphylococcus aurius bacteria evolved to become resistant..."

2. Whatever the source, it lacks evidence of a knowledge of science: a genus is always capitalized, a species is never.

As follows:
"Staphylococcus aureus is a bacterium...."
Staphylococcus aureus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




3. The development of resistance is not an example of evolution. It is an example of a mutation, the natural event that results in an alteration of a nucleic acid.
BTW....almost all mutations are harmful, and usually toxic.



4. Evolution requires speciation.....the accumulation of enough mutations, changes, such that the new organism cannot interbreed with the original.


But...you have proven that you are an ignorant wannabe, and no where near capable of debating the subject with me.



The same applies to Rocks, and the other wannabes.
Clearly, I understand what is and what is not "evolution" far more than any of you do.


Be sure to return when you require either another lesson or another spanking.


Dunce.

The microorganism that I was talking about is known as MRSA or Methycillin resistant Staphyloccus Aureus. It is in fact a mutation which is the very bread and butter of evolution. A living thing mutating is evolution in action. You cannot evade that simply by claiming it isn't so.

MRSA is a dangerous microorganism and we in the medical community wish like hell that your false claim about mutations being harmful and/or toxic was true.

You really need to stop building evolutionary strawmen. Speciation doesn't occur overnight and the change from the harmless Satphyloccus Aureus to MRSA is as close to speciation as anyone is likely to see in one lifetime.

We have to get a new flu shot every year, why? Because the flu virus is constantly evolving, so much so that the antibodies built up to fight it no longer work. A virus cannot accomplish that with simply a minor change in one protein, it requires a significant mutation or mutations. It is evolution, right in front of your eyes.

 

[PredFan]

Mutation is the mechanism for evolution. Holy shit, you should not be talking science.

Just, stop it.

Hard to believe that you are so stupid that you don't even realize the beating you just took!


Right now, you're probably trying to brush something off your face....you don't realize that it's the floor.




Evolution requires the production of a new species different from the original, you moron.

With all due respect, you are incorrect.

 

[orogenicman]

Best way to raise the blood pressure of a secular-science advocate is to criticize Darwin.

Unless that scientist's field of choice is mechanical engineering, in which case, why would he/her care?

Which I do...because there is no proof for his theory.

Only the scientifically pre-literate make that claim.

One of my frequent debate-battles partners first claimed that I deny science in stating that Darwinian evolution is flawed as a scientific theory.

He wrote:

" I accept the evidence presented, overwhelming evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, in both cases. [Darwinian evolution and global warming.]

The proof of evolution is present in every cell of your body.
Your 'disproof' of these facts is that you don't want to face reality."


Read carefully....my pal seems to be backing away from Darwin...and smoothly moving over to some other theory...."evolution."
Sure would like him to explain to what theory he now subscribes.....

You'd have to be deluded to ever come to your conclusion with regard to what your "debate battle-partner" has said. But then, your utter ignorance with regard to science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular has already been shown to be a result of your religious delusions.

But....I'd like to respond to my bud, as follows:

I actually understand which aspects of evolution are science, and which aren't.....aren't because the facts run counter to the theory.

Your problem is that you understand science in the same way that a two year old understands mommy's orders: unquestioningly!

Shall I try to teach you?

If this is the way you teach, it is a good thing you aren't a real teacher, because you would not long survive the profession.

1. 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. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | | Richard C. Francis

Now, pal...since you are unable to find documentation that runs counter to the above.....let's stipulate that I am correct about science up to this point. Fair?



2. Here comes the part where I destroy the idea that you have any cachet, and expertise comparable to mine:

We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species, pre-Cambrian.
QED..... Darwin loses, you lose, I win.


Who says so?

a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)





Now....if none of the Darwinists on the board can refute the above......

....I'd be glad to explain why they, Darwinists, are so quick to accept the 'evidence-less' theory.

You argue your case as if refuting anything, even one little thing, that Darwin said or did (which, of course, you have never been able to do) will cause the theory of evolution to come crumbling down, ignoring, of course, the intervening 150 years of scientific achievement. Are you brain damaged, or what? Judging from the fact that you ignore any evidence presented to you in this thread or anywhere else, I have to assume that that is an affirmative. I'd recommend that you see a doctor, but darn, so many of them are "Darwinists", what's an ignoramus like you to do?

 

[Steven_R]

b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)

That phrase never actually appears anywhere in volume 86 of Natural History, either in or outside of a Gould article. Either the source you're cutting and pasting from is grossly incompetent or is outright lying. If they can't even give a correct citation on a smoking gun statement that kills evolution, why are they expected to be right on anything else?

You don't have to take my word for it. You can read the entire volume online for yourself: https://archive.org/details/naturalhistory86newy

 

[PoliticalChic]

b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)

That phrase never actually appears anywhere in volume 86 of Natural History, either in or outside of a Gould article. Either the source you're cutting and pasting from is grossly incompetent or is outright lying. If they can't even give a correct citation on a smoking gun statement that kills evolution, why are they expected to be right on anything else?

You don't have to take my word for it. You can read the entire volume online for yourself: https://archive.org/details/naturalhistory86newy

All of the following are statements by Stephen Gould.
You may track down the original books/articles.


1. Results rarely specify their causes unambiguously. If we have no direct evidence of fossils or human chronicles, if we are forced to infer a process only from its modern results, then we are usually stymied or reduced to speculation about probabilities. For many roads lead to almost any Rome.
"Senseless Signs of History", p. 34

2. The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

3. Evolution is a theory of organic change, but it does not imply, as many people assume, that ceaseless flux is the irreducible state of nature and that structure is but a temporary incarnation of the moment. Change is more often a rapid transition between stable states than a continuous transformation at slow and steady rates. We live in a world of structure and legitimate distinction. Species are the units of nature's morphology.
"A Quahog is a Quahog", p. 213

4. A complete theory of evolution must acknowledge a balance between “external” forces of environment imposing selection for local adaptation and “internal” forces representing constraints of inheritance and development. Vavilov placed too much emphasis on internal constraints and downgraded the power of selection. But Western Darwinians have erred equally in practically ignoring (while acknowledging in theory) the limits placed on selection by structure and development—what Vavilov and the older biologists would have called “laws of form.”
"A Hearing for Vavilov", p. 144

5. Advocates for a single line of progress encounter their greatest stumbling block when they try to find a smooth link between the apparently disparate designs of the invertebrates and vertebrates.
"Brotherhood by Inversion", p. 320



You may doubt Gould, or Darwin....but you make a mistake in doubting me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Best way to raise the blood pressure of a secular-science advocate is to criticize Darwin.

Unless that scientist's field of choice is mechanical engineering, in which case, why would he/her care?

Which I do...because there is no proof for his theory.

Only the scientifically pre-literate make that claim.



You'd have to be deluded to ever come to your conclusion with regard to what your "debate battle-partner" has said. But then, your utter ignorance with regard to science in general, and the theory of evolution in particular has already been shown to be a result of your religious delusions.



If this is the way you teach, it is a good thing you aren't a real teacher, because you would not long survive the profession.

1. 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. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | | Richard C. Francis

Now, pal...since you are unable to find documentation that runs counter to the above.....let's stipulate that I am correct about science up to this point. Fair?



2. Here comes the part where I destroy the idea that you have any cachet, and expertise comparable to mine:

We have pre-Cambrian fossils....and Cambrian fossils. In the latter there are fully formed brand new species with new body types and organs with no evidence of attempts in nature to lead up to these new species, pre-Cambrian.
QED..... Darwin loses, you lose, I win.


Who says so?

a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)





Now....if none of the Darwinists on the board can refute the above......

....I'd be glad to explain why they, Darwinists, are so quick to accept the 'evidence-less' theory.

You argue your case as if refuting anything, even one little thing, that Darwin said or did (which, of course, you have never been able to do) will cause the theory of evolution to come crumbling down, ignoring, of course, the intervening 150 years of scientific achievement. Are you brain damaged, or what? Judging from the fact that you ignore any evidence presented to you in this thread or anywhere else, I have to assume that that is an affirmative. I'd recommend that you see a doctor, but darn, so many of them are "Darwinists", what's an ignoramus like you to do?

Scram, liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Mutation is the mechanism for evolution. Holy shit, you should not be talking science.

Just, stop it.

Hard to believe that you are so stupid that you don't even realize the beating you just took!


Right now, you're probably trying to brush something off your face....you don't realize that it's the floor.




Evolution requires the production of a new species different from the original, you moron.

With all due respect, you are incorrect.

Then you misunderstand the theory of evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

See, you and I have this in common: the letter "i".....

I, for informed.....

...and you for ignorant.



Without the slightest hope of you actually learning....I will still inform:



1. You provided this, without giving credit to the source: "...One sees that the staphylococcus aurius bacteria evolved to become resistant..."

2. Whatever the source, it lacks evidence of a knowledge of science: a genus is always capitalized, a species is never.

As follows:
"Staphylococcus aureus is a bacterium...."
Staphylococcus aureus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




3. The development of resistance is not an example of evolution. It is an example of a mutation, the natural event that results in an alteration of a nucleic acid.
BTW....almost all mutations are harmful, and usually toxic.



4. Evolution requires speciation.....the accumulation of enough mutations, changes, such that the new organism cannot interbreed with the original.


But...you have proven that you are an ignorant wannabe, and no where near capable of debating the subject with me.



The same applies to Rocks, and the other wannabes.
Clearly, I understand what is and what is not "evolution" far more than any of you do.


Be sure to return when you require either another lesson or another spanking.


Dunce.

The microorganism that I was talking about is known as MRSA or Methycillin resistant Staphyloccus Aureus. It is in fact a mutation which is the very bread and butter of evolution. A living thing mutating is evolution in action. You cannot evade that simply by claiming it isn't so.

MRSA is a dangerous microorganism and we in the medical community wish like hell that your false claim about mutations being harmful and/or toxic was true.

You really need to stop building evolutionary strawmen. Speciation doesn't occur overnight and the change from the harmless Satphyloccus Aureus to MRSA is as close to speciation as anyone is likely to see in one lifetime.

We have to get a new flu shot every year, why? Because the flu virus is constantly evolving, so much so that the antibodies built up to fight it no longer work. A virus cannot accomplish that with simply a minor change in one protein, it requires a significant mutation or mutations. It is evolution, right in front of your eyes.

" It is in fact a mutation which is the very bread and butter of evolution. A living thing mutating is evolution in action."

No it isn't.

It is simply a mutation.

 

[G.T.]

A mutation is evolution. It's never not. This doesn't even need to be explained it's so fundamental. Just stfu already.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A mutation is evolution. It's never not. This doesn't even need to be explained it's so fundamental. Just stfu already.

Thanks for stopping by, but this discussion is beyond you.


Why am I responsible for your education????
I understand your desire to appear relevant....or conscious...but, let's be honest: you're a fool.






"Evolution absolutely depends on mutations because this is the only way that new alleles and new regulatory regions are created.

But this seems paradoxical because
most mutations that we observe are
harmful (e.g., many missense mutations) or, at best,
neutral, for example:
"silent" mutations encoding the same amino acid
perhaps many of the mutations in the vast amounts of DNA that lie between genes.
most mutations in genes affect a single protein product (or a small set of related proteins produced by alternative splicing of a single gene transcript) while much evolutionary change involves myriad structural and functional changes in the phenotype.
So how can the small changes in genes caused by mutations, especially single-base substitutions ("point mutations"), lead to the large changes that distinguish one species from another?"
Mutation and Evolution


This is evolution: "... distinguish one species from another."

To say 'a mutation' is equivalent to 'evolution' is the same as saying a single dollar is the same as a million dollars.

I suppose you might actually believe that....

Dunce.

 

[editec]

This thread is hilarious.

Thanks PC, this is great.

 

[G.T.]

This thread is hilarious.

Thanks PC, this is great.

The arrogance in the face of ignorance that she displays for all to see is joyous.