How To Define "Evolution"?

[orogenicman]

I suggest you learn the difference between fact and scientific theory. Evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena of adaptation of all life to environmental conditions, and change. The fact here is that this change occurs, that does not make the theory of evolution a fact.

Evolution is the theoretic underpinning of biology. If someone manages to prove that it is false at some point in the future biological science will adapt and switch to whatever theory best confirms with the new information. A good example of this would be the way physics had to adapt to the fact that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein and all the experiments that confirm various aspects of relativity. Physics managed to chug along even though the entire underpinning of everything that they knew up to that point was destroyed, and most people never even noticed.

Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein. Einstein's theory stands on Newton's shoulders. His work extended Newton's work to areas Newton never conceived was possible. That didn't negate Newton's work. Most of it is just as valid today as it was when he wrote the principia.

As for the theory of evolution. You are correct that it is currently the best available paradigm for explaining biologic diversity. And if one comes along that is better at explaining the data we possess, I will be the first to sing its praises. So I eagerly await publication of your treatise. You are working on it, right?

What cave did you just crawl out of?? As I said to Hollie above, when you do move on from the incomplete and simplistic views of evolution that you've insisted on for your life -- aren't ya gonna have to admit that the creationists were correct about some of their "weaknesses" in your theory?

Ever hear of creating 100 new species in 10 days in the lab?

According to the book "Evolution," by Ruth Moore, it is possible to speed up mutations with radiation:

So Muller put hundreds of fruit flies in gelatin capsules and bombarded them with X-rays. The irradiated flies were then bred to untreated ones. In 10 days thousands of their offspring were buzzing around their banana-mash feed, and Muller was looking upon an unprecedented outburst of man-made mutations. There were flies with bulging eyes, flat eyes, purple, yellow and brown eyes. Some had curly bristles, some no bristles...
Mutations fuel the process of evolution by providing new genes in the gene pool of a species.

Then, natural selection takes over.

What's the implication of that?

Jumping genes helped evolution - Joshua Rampling - Science Alert - RichardDawkins.net

Local research theory gives further proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.

Murdoch Univeristy Professor Wayne Greene and PhD student Keith Oliver have posited that transposons —also known as jumping genes—have had a larger role in primate and human evolution than is traditionally thought.

Prof Greene says the theory will help strengthen the argument for evolution and may be useful in explaining and understanding the large-scale changes that occur in a species, known as macroevolution.

“You can understand microevolution, small scale changes with a few little mutations here and there, but to make the big jumps in evolution it is really hard to understand without major changes to genomes which jumping genes can facilitate,” he says.

And then there is plenty of work on how periods of great stress from disasters and climate can fuel acceleration of mutation and adaptation. THere is a mountain of non-Darwinian science out there. All pointing toward evidence of MASSIVE LEAPS in evolution rather than random slower adaptations.

As I have said a half a dozen times, dufus, Darwin was not the end of the story. Secondly, since you have apparently admitted that evolution occurs based on the above citations, what is your point about creationism? Do you believe that it supplants evolution, and if so, how so?

 

[orogenicman]

Where the fuck did I use the word negate? It is fine and dandy to apply Newtonian physics to what happens in an inertial reference frame. Unfortunately, the universe is a non inertial reference frame, which can easily be demonstrated by a Foucault pendulum.

The phrase you used was "proven wrong". He wasn't proven wrong - not by Einstein or anyone else. As has been pointed out by me and others, is that what Einstein showed was that it had limitations, not that it was wrong.

Like I said, he is right, except where he is wrong.

It is physically impossible to look at stars in a Newtonian universe, but that doesn't make him wrong.

But it is not impossible to use Newtonian physics to get us out into the solar system. And we have done just that.

Do you deny that Newtonian physics is used today in many fields? Do you have an understanding that 1=1=2 is not the last word in mathematics? That all of these works have limitations, even Einstein's? And that Newton laid the foundation for pretty much everything and everyone that came after in physics, including Einstein's work?

Newton's laws: background and limitations. From Physclips: Mechanics with animations and film.

 

[orogenicman]

Let me get this straight, when you said that PC was wrong, and I showed that she wasn't, that doesn't contradict anything you said?

Do I have evidence that string theory is correct? No. Do you have evidence that it is wrong? No.

My mistake. I misunderstood what she had said. Just so were are all on the same page (especially me):

She said, as you pointed out, that light was "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits". Photons are not electrons. Electrons have mass. A single electron weighs about 9.109534 x 10 −31 kg. Photons do not have mass. If you accelerate an electron (e.g. if it passes close to a proton), it causes a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which will propagate away from the disturbed electron at the speed of light. We call this propagating packet of energy a photon.

As for string theory, not having evidence that it is wrong is not evidence that it is right. What we currently know is that none of those theories are testable, though some have hinted at the possibility.

We also know that something like string theory has to be true, because there is no way to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity without it.

But we cannot yet test any of it, and so all we are left with is some great mathematical proofs with no empirical evidence to back them up. That may come in the future, but we are a long way from getting there. To me, M-theory currently has the best promise, but like I said, we've got a long way to go.

 

[orogenicman]

PC Chic, you didn't get back to me with regard to my questions:

Now, my questions to you are do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?

Oh, and how is that bunny rabbit in the Cambrian search going?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The phrase you used was "proven wrong". He wasn't proven wrong - not by Einstein or anyone else. As has been pointed out by me and others, is that what Einstein showed was that it had limitations, not that it was wrong.

Like I said, he is right, except where he is wrong.

It is physically impossible to look at stars in a Newtonian universe, but that doesn't make him wrong.

But it is not impossible to use Newtonian physics to get us out into the solar system. And we have done just that.

Do you deny that Newtonian physics is used today in many fields? Do you have an understanding that 1=1=2 is not the last word in mathematics? That all of these works have limitations, even Einstein's? And that Newton laid the foundation for pretty much everything and everyone that came after in physics, including Einstein's work?

Newton's laws: background and limitations. From Physclips: Mechanics with animations and film.

Do you understand that the Newtonian universe, which was the standard model before Einstein, is wrong?

Do you also understand that Einstein knew he didn't have all the answers, and that he was even aware of the existence of quantum mechanics? That, as a result, his work was aimed specifically at what he did know?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My mistake. I misunderstood what she had said. Just so were are all on the same page (especially me):

She said, as you pointed out, that light was "the energy of the atoms, released as electrons move between orbits". Photons are not electrons. Electrons have mass. A single electron weighs about 9.109534 x 10 −31 kg. Photons do not have mass. If you accelerate an electron (e.g. if it passes close to a proton), it causes a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, which will propagate away from the disturbed electron at the speed of light. We call this propagating packet of energy a photon.

As for string theory, not having evidence that it is wrong is not evidence that it is right. What we currently know is that none of those theories are testable, though some have hinted at the possibility.

We also know that something like string theory has to be true, because there is no way to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity without it.

But we cannot yet test any of it, and so all we are left with is some great mathematical proofs with no empirical evidence to back them up. That may come in the future, but we are a long way from getting there. To me, M-theory currently has the best promise, but like I said, we've got a long way to go.

We couldn't test for the Higgs bosun either, what's your point?

 

[orogenicman]

Like I said, he is right, except where he is wrong.

It is physically impossible to look at stars in a Newtonian universe, but that doesn't make him wrong.

But it is not impossible to use Newtonian physics to get us out into the solar system. And we have done just that.

Do you deny that Newtonian physics is used today in many fields? Do you have an understanding that 1=1=2 is not the last word in mathematics? That all of these works have limitations, even Einstein's? And that Newton laid the foundation for pretty much everything and everyone that came after in physics, including Einstein's work?

Newton's laws: background and limitations. From Physclips: Mechanics with animations and film.

Do you understand that the Newtonian universe, which was the standard model before Einstein, is wrong?

Hello! I'm not , and never have been arguing that Newton's 'standard model' was right. WTH is wrong with you? How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Do you also understand that Einstein knew he didn't have all the answers, and that he was even aware of the existence of quantum mechanics? That, as a result, his work was aimed specifically at what he did know?

What does that have to do with anything we are discussing?

 

[orogenicman]

We also know that something like string theory has to be true, because there is no way to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity without it.

But we cannot yet test any of it, and so all we are left with is some great mathematical proofs with no empirical evidence to back them up. That may come in the future, but we are a long way from getting there. To me, M-theory currently has the best promise, but like I said, we've got a long way to go.

We couldn't test for the Higgs bosun either, what's your point?

You enjoy watching me repeat myself, don't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bravo --- you have demonstrated the complete lack of appreciation for literary license and a VENOMOUS desire to crush anything that disturbs you..

I disagree.. I pointed out the GENERAL agreements with science theory -- that light was before matter and all the rest.

It's almost comical how desparate the attempt to squash those rational observations about the story are. For instance. SPECULATION on the state of the universe PRIOR to the Big Bang requires FAITH --- since there is no proof of a steady-state map of the territory. And the literary comment about God's face "upon the waters" is taken WAAAAY too literally. It was clear in the progression of events that there was no Earth, no light, only VOID. And I'm happy to imagine to imagine the "waters" as ether.

There's only one thing I hate in this life --- and that's those who HATE so badly -- that they lose all sense of proportion and rationality.

Go on believing that LIGHT pervaded the universe before the Big Bang. If that's your "FAITH" -- I won't mock it..
Just like I won't mock your nutty belief that all matter and energy in the universe fit into an area the size of a pinhead prior to the "bang" ignition.
How much FAITH does that take eh??

Won't continue this here. Don't want to distract from "Darwin explains everything evolutionary" nutcases who don't understand the evidence or lack thereof..

I should probably know better than to ask, but what do you mean by “literary license” in the context here?

Are you suggesting that the words in the bible are sometimes metaphorical - sometimes not? Sometimes in “general agreement” - sometimes not? Sometimes an accurate rendition – sometimes not?

The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words / verses are “gospel” and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?

Of course there is literary license in the Bible.. Why would we have so many preachers and rabbinical students if there was only ONE WAY to read it. There are some that take every word literally.. I'm not one. I'm spiritual and FULLY SUPPORT people of faith, but I'm not as fundamental about religion as I am for instance about my political and social "beliefs".

I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct. Why not simply be clear and do not allow for such confusion? Why is it that the theistic perspective offers a god who confounds us, but the materialist perspective offers one that makes sense-- a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here. Simple. Explainable. Understandable. No need to assert mysterious beings using mysterious ways we can never know, precluding us from ever finding out.

Even more reason to cut the narrative some slack.. From where the Earth sits at the moment --- would have been several hundred thousand years for the light to arrive.

This is most spectacularly displayed with apologists’ tendency to interpret length of days, well, this puts you firmly on a slippery slope. The story doesn't indicate anything is particularly metaphorical-- it seems to be in the context of "This happened, then this happened". Suddenly you can play fast and loose with the term "day" (and I know there are numerous translations of the word "day" from the Hebrew and Greek, but then we'd get in the problems with shoddy translation and why god'd allow that, etc. and that is a different thread). Well, if you can play fast and loose with the term "day", then so can anyone with... oh, the parting of the Red Sea. The Flood. The resurrection.

And yes, as a materialist, I can dissect the stories because I believe them to be wholly fabricated. You have a lot less latitude if you wish to assert a perfect god is the author of all of this, directly or otherwise.

Your loss. Ever hear the Native American accounts of Creation? You had time to read Homer? Maybe some Beowolf? What's the diff? Unless you're FRIGHTENED of early accounts of civilized culture --- you should have nothing to fear.

Unless you regard the Bible as a symbol of your own arrogance and believe you are above it all. Like the parent who lets' out a snicker at a cartoon that he just told his kid not to watch. Beating up on FAITH is for stupid folks who BELIEVE themselves to be intellectually superior. After a good portion of a career in science and engineering, I'm here to tell you that without FAITH -- nothing would get innovated.

Here we are discussing Darwin and missing links and the predictable DEFENSE of "natural selection" still continues DESPITE massive NEW science and revelations since the Beagle sailed. WHY? Because the folks who HATE people of faith with a passion --- would have to admit that in their RECENT HISTORY --- they've ignored basic weaknesses in the theory that they trusted implicitly and ADMIT that some creationist arguments MIGHT have had validity.

And their arrogance won't let them admit that..

The literary references show you to be way over the heads of these folks....


And, being as limited as they are, it goes far toward explaining why they become incensed when one fails to agree with their tunnel vision.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Erm, what? No. Light is composed of photons, not atoms or electrons.



Just so you understand that the light that reaches us from space comes from photons emitted from ionized gas and reflected light, not atoms in a neutral state.



That is correct. What Hubble did was discover the Hubble constant along with Milton Humason. What any of this has to do with anything in this thread is the real mystery.

<snip>



The mystery unfolds. So you want to use the big bang as evidence of some ultimate cause, (i.e., your Judeo-Christian god), right. Problem is, as soon as you make that leap, you've left theoretical paradigms behind and jumped right into untestable speculation. As you tried to point out, "The ‘retreat’ into the theoretical past ends with all material particles at no distance from each other, and the temperature, density and curvature of the universe at infinity" - i.e., the so-called big bang singularity, as you called it. This "retreat" includes the known laws of physics, and therefore, of causation. Causation requires a few things, particularly time. And there is no evidence that time existed at "t=0", nor any reasons to expect that it would exist. So it follows that there is no evidence of the existence of causation in that "singularity". The result is that trying to find your god there as a first cause for everything breaks down into meaningless.

Still no transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian...'the age of the trilobites'?

Loser.


How many times a day do you find yourself asking "Why am I so lonely?"

Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica


It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.

Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.

My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.

been thought

most likely

it was thought

some degree of diachronous transition

it has been suggested

more likely

related to



You dunce.

Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.


You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'






Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:



"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.

“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
David Berlinski




Think about the phrase 'party line'.....

 

[Derideo_Te]

Still no transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian...'the age of the trilobites'?

Loser.


How many times a day do you find yourself asking "Why am I so lonely?"

Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica


It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.

Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.

My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.

been thought

most likely

it was thought

some degree of diachronous transition

it has been suggested

more likely

related to



You dunce.

Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.


You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'






Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:



"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.

“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
David Berlinski




Think about the phrase 'party line'.....

Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica


It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.

Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.

My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.

been thought

most likely

it was thought

some degree of diachronous transition

it has been suggested

more likely

related to



You dunce.

Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.


You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'






Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:



"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.

“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
David Berlinski




Think about the phrase 'party line'.....

Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.

Did I miss a post?

Where is the one where you thanked me for teaching you that the laws of physics are hardly eternal?

I thought it was a darned good lesson......did you take notes?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica


It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.

Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.

My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.

been thought

most likely

it was thought

some degree of diachronous transition

it has been suggested

more likely

related to



You dunce.

Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.


You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'






Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:



"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.

“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
David Berlinski




Think about the phrase 'party line'.....

Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.

You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.

Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?

 

[Hollie]

Ediacara fauna (paleontology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica


It had long been thought that the Ediacara fauna became entirely extinct at the end of the Precambrian, most likely due to heavy grazing by early skeletal animals. However, more recently, that environmental events such as changes in sea level played a greater role in the extinction of many Ediacaran organisms. Yet, recent discoveries have led to the current view that a few Ediacara-type organisms continued into the Cambrian. Moreover, some calcareous shelly fossils and sponge spicules have been found in Ediacara-age sediments, indicating that there was some degree of diachronous transition between the Precambrian soft-bodied organisms and the organisms with skeletons in the Cambrian.

Most of the Ediacara fauna are found immediately above tillites (glacial beds derived from ice sheets) that were widespread in the late Precambrian. Though it has been suggested that development of the Ediacara organisms was aided by the improvement of climate after the ice ages, a few occurrences of the Ediacara fauna are located between two glacial tillite beds, and some in West Africa and northwestern Canada have been found immediately below a layer of tillites. It is more likely that the origin of the Ediacara fauna was related to a global rise in the atmospheric oxygen level, which triggered a burst of development in these primitive metazoan animals toward the end of Precambrian time.

My, my, PC. Your ignorance and willfullness to remains so is certainly on display on this thread. I suggest you steer clear of scientific debates, anybody with more than a seventh grade education is going to kick your silly ass.

been thought

most likely

it was thought

some degree of diachronous transition

it has been suggested

more likely

related to



You dunce.

Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.


You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'






Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:



"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.

“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
David Berlinski




Think about the phrase 'party line'.....

Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.

It would be great to see the peer reviewed research in biology that Berlinski has performed and submitted. Too bad there isn't any.

It's always comical to see the discredited and laughable creationist hacks that PC finds to cut and paste from.


Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski


As we see with regularity, PC is simply a cut and paster. She scours such locations as Harun Yahya for fraudulent "quotes" and references creationist hacks such as Berlinski who shills for the charlatans at the Disco' tute.

So we're clear, Berlinski is not a biologist. Anyone is free to question the validity of the biological sciences. However, if one does not have a degree in biology, has never studied biology and knows nothing about biology, then they really have no business critiquing biological sciences. Berlinski just has no authority or valid position from which to criticize such subject matter. He’s free to make the criticism, but it would be foolish for anyone to think that Berlinski is in any position to offer a comprehensive refutation of evolutionary theory.

 

[Hollie]

been thought

most likely

it was thought

some degree of diachronous transition

it has been suggested

more likely

related to



You dunce.

Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.


You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'






Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:



"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.

“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
David Berlinski




Think about the phrase 'party line'.....

Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.

You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.

Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?

As your ideas are whatever you can cut and paste from Harun Yahya, how about a nice hot cup of tea and lay down on the couch to resume your coma.

 

[Derideo_Te]

been thought

most likely

it was thought

some degree of diachronous transition

it has been suggested

more likely

related to



You dunce.

Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.


You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'






Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:



"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.

“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
David Berlinski




Think about the phrase 'party line'.....

Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.

You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.

Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?

Should you really be revealing your kinky proclivities in this forum, PC?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.

You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.

Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?

Should you really be revealing your kinky proclivities in this forum, PC?

How did I know you'd go for the low hanging fruit?




And how come you left out the part about your bonehead claim?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.

You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.

Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?

As your ideas are whatever you can cut and paste from Harun Yahya, how about a nice hot cup of tea and lay down on the couch to resume your coma.

I whipped you good.....didn't I.


I am so looking forward to your add on Craig's List: For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.

 

[PoliticalChic]

been thought

most likely

it was thought

some degree of diachronous transition

it has been suggested

more likely

related to



You dunce.

Bet you'd accept a contract to buy the Brooklyn Bridge as long as my ownership of same was documented as specifically as the bloviation you've posted.


You'd be well advised to look into your university's 'money back guarantee.'






Hate to do it.....but the pain will be good for you.
The following reveals why everything you have been taught to believe is a fraud:



"The greater part of the debate over Darwin’s theory is not in service to the facts. Nor to the theory. The facts are what they have always been: They are unforthcoming. And the theory is what it always was: It is unpersuasive.

Among evolutionary biologists, these matters are well known. In the privacy of the Susan B. Anthony faculty lounge, they often tell one another with relief that it is a very good thing the public has no idea what the research literature really suggests.

“Darwin?” a Nobel laureate in biology once re-marked to me over his bifocals. “That’s just the party line.”
David Berlinski




Think about the phrase 'party line'.....

Care to provide actual links to this "research literature" rather than just idle gossip because I would hate to see you falling into the same lack of specificity problem that you went to so much trouble to "expose", sweet-Pc.

It would be great to see the peer reviewed research in biology that Berlinski has performed and submitted. Too bad there isn't any.

It's always comical to see the discredited and laughable creationist hacks that PC finds to cut and paste from.


Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski


As we see with regularity, PC is simply a cut and paster. She scours such locations as Harun Yahya for fraudulent "quotes" and references creationist hacks such as Berlinski who shills for the charlatans at the Disco' tute.

So we're clear, Berlinski is not a biologist. Anyone is free to question the validity of the biological sciences. However, if one does not have a degree in biology, has never studied biology and knows nothing about biology, then they really have no business critiquing biological sciences. Berlinski just has no authority or valid position from which to criticize such subject matter. He’s free to make the criticism, but it would be foolish for anyone to think that Berlinski is in any position to offer a comprehensive refutation of evolutionary theory.

Do I have to keep reminding you?

You can prove that the OP is in error simply by providing proof of the transitional fossil that lead to the 'age of the trilobites,'...the Cambrian.


But you can't...'cause I'm correct.....

....and you are....and will always be.....a dunce.




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eSLfgR2vZg]Nature Sounds - Sound of Crickets at Night - Meditation Sleep Relaxing Sounds - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

You know....your lacunae often give me an idea for an OP.....one on noted scientists who eviscerate Darwin's ideas.

Is that what you're looking for....another spanking?

As your ideas are whatever you can cut and paste from Harun Yahya, how about a nice hot cup of tea and lay down on the couch to resume your coma.

I whipped you good.....didn't I.


I am so looking forward to your add on Craig's List: For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.

You obviously realized that parading Berlinski around as an authority on evolutionary biology was hopeless.

You made yourself look like quite the fool, didn't you.