Is Darwinian Theory Even Science?

[del]

how can one live in unbearable agony?

it would be bearable then, no?

Is a troll like del truly alive?

of course i am

i live in gnome, alaska

 

[del]

there have always been cul-de sacs in evolution.

so the fact that your mental endowments don't seem to progress, not even on microscale, is not an argument supporting that darwin's theory of evolution is not science.

Birdie....Darwin's theory is based on faith, as much as theology is.
My problem with it is the deleterious effects it's had on society.

If folks believe it to be factual, or proven, it gives license to behave as animals, and accept such behavior with a shrug.

1. If science requires testable evidence, Darwin's theory has no such evidence.

a. “The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted.” (Paul, C.R.C, “The Adequacy of the Fossil Record,” 1982, p. 75.)




2. There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.


3. But there is clear evidence of organisms having arrived complete and unique.

a. “The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239.)




4. “The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!




5. Further, I can show a relationship of the thinking of Darwinians and Marxists. There is a political reason to advance the theory of evolution.

a. “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”



We have come full circle. The Church is correctly blamed for the Inquisition....yet you Darwinists, today, burn careers at the stake if fellow scientists disclaim Darwin's theory.


I don't care if you continue to believe it, merely accept that it is faith, not fact.

You left off: The Earth is flat.

and the sun revolves around it

political chunky claims to have attended columbia as part of some kind of affirmative action program for stupid people.

i have no idea if that's true, but she's certainly qualified

 

[Uncensored2008]

of course i am

i live in gnome, alaska

Gnomes and trolls belong together....

EDIT: Do you think trolls devolved from gnomes?

 

[Ravi]

of course i am

i live in gnome, alaska

Gnomes and trolls belong together....

EDIT: Do you think trolls devolved from gnomes?

If you have to explain it, it isn't funny. Not that you ever are.

 

[L.K.Eder]

of course i am

i live in gnome, alaska

Gnomes and trolls belong together....

EDIT: Do you think trolls devolved from gnomes?

gnomes AND trolls were created by GOD 6023 years ago.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you have to explain it, it isn't funny. Not that you ever are.

My bad for thinking a wit as dull as del could grasp a simple quip...

 

[Koios]

Birdie....Darwin's theory is based on faith, as much as theology is.
My problem with it is the deleterious effects it's had on society.

If folks believe it to be factual, or proven, it gives license to behave as animals, and accept such behavior with a shrug.

1. If science requires testable evidence, Darwin's theory has no such evidence.

a. “The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted.” (Paul, C.R.C, “The Adequacy of the Fossil Record,” 1982, p. 75.)




2. There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.


3. But there is clear evidence of organisms having arrived complete and unique.

a. “The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239.)




4. “The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!




5. Further, I can show a relationship of the thinking of Darwinians and Marxists. There is a political reason to advance the theory of evolution.

a. “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”



We have come full circle. The Church is correctly blamed for the Inquisition....yet you Darwinists, today, burn careers at the stake if fellow scientists disclaim Darwin's theory.


I don't care if you continue to believe it, merely accept that it is faith, not fact.

You left off: The Earth is flat.

and the sun revolves around it

political chunky claims to have attended columbia as part of some kind of affirmative action program for stupid people.

i have no idea if that's true, but she's certainly qualified

Correct. A fact that the Christian Church had to be drug by the hair before accepting.

 

[del]

of course i am

i live in gnome, alaska

Gnomes and trolls belong together....

EDIT: Do you think trolls devolved from gnomes?

gnomes AND trolls were created by GOD 6023 years ago.

day 4

 

[PoliticalChic]

there have always been cul-de sacs in evolution.

so the fact that your mental endowments don't seem to progress, not even on microscale, is not an argument supporting that darwin's theory of evolution is not science.

Birdie....Darwin's theory is based on faith, as much as theology is.
My problem with it is the deleterious effects it's had on society.

If folks believe it to be factual, or proven, it gives license to behave as animals, and accept such behavior with a shrug.

1. If science requires testable evidence, Darwin's theory has no such evidence.

a. “The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted.” (Paul, C.R.C, “The Adequacy of the Fossil Record,” 1982, p. 75.)




2. There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.


3. But there is clear evidence of organisms having arrived complete and unique.

a. “The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239.)




4. “The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!




5. Further, I can show a relationship of the thinking of Darwinians and Marxists. There is a political reason to advance the theory of evolution.

a. “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”



We have come full circle. The Church is correctly blamed for the Inquisition....yet you Darwinists, today, burn careers at the stake if fellow scientists disclaim Darwin's theory.


I don't care if you continue to believe it, merely accept that it is faith, not fact.

i accept nothink.

read about the grant's research and come back to me.

I'll get right on that....as soon as you show the lab work that resulted in changes of one species into another.

Is there evidence that paleontologists can provide?
Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specializes in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution. Hmmm….doesn’t seem to help Darwin’s theory, eh?

Dr Carroll is the author or co-author of a large number of scientific papers on fossil vertebrates, as well as a number of important monographs, text-books and more general books. His areas of research include the origins of terrestrial vertebrates, the origin and early evolutionary radiation of amniotes, the origin and interrelationships of the Lissamphibian groups, the anatomy and relationship of Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles, large scale patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, and the use of Mesozoic marine reptiles as a model for investigating factors controlling the patterns and rates of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Carroll

Ooops.....did I inadvertently insult your religion?

 

[PoliticalChic]

our old grand father is adem and his old grand father "shanpasy"

Wait a minute while I get out my Rosetta Stone.....

 

[Old Rocks]

Birdie....Darwin's theory is based on faith, as much as theology is.
My problem with it is the deleterious effects it's had on society.

If folks believe it to be factual, or proven, it gives license to behave as animals, and accept such behavior with a shrug.

1. If science requires testable evidence, Darwin's theory has no such evidence.

a. “The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted.” (Paul, C.R.C, “The Adequacy of the Fossil Record,” 1982, p. 75.)




2. There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.


3. But there is clear evidence of organisms having arrived complete and unique.

a. “The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239.)




4. “The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!




5. Further, I can show a relationship of the thinking of Darwinians and Marxists. There is a political reason to advance the theory of evolution.

a. “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”



We have come full circle. The Church is correctly blamed for the Inquisition....yet you Darwinists, today, burn careers at the stake if fellow scientists disclaim Darwin's theory.


I don't care if you continue to believe it, merely accept that it is faith, not fact.

i accept nothink.

read about the grant's research and come back to me.

I'll get right on that....as soon as you show the lab work that resulted in changes of one species into another.

Is there evidence that paleontologists can provide?
Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specializes in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution. Hmmm….doesn’t seem to help Darwin’s theory, eh?

Dr Carroll is the author or co-author of a large number of scientific papers on fossil vertebrates, as well as a number of important monographs, text-books and more general books. His areas of research include the origins of terrestrial vertebrates, the origin and early evolutionary radiation of amniotes, the origin and interrelationships of the Lissamphibian groups, the anatomy and relationship of Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles, large scale patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, and the use of Mesozoic marine reptiles as a model for investigating factors controlling the patterns and rates of evolution.
Robert L. Carroll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ooops.....did I inadvertently insult your religion?

No, once again you proved that you sophistry is just that.

Punctated equilibrium. No paleontologist that I have ever listened to, or spoke with, contends that evolution moves in anything but spurts and jerks. One has only to look at the record in geology of the major and minor extinction periods to understand why.

As for the rest of your nonsense, the science of genetics has shown beyond any reasonable doubt the evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life remains on Earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

Birdie....Darwin's theory is based on faith, as much as theology is.
My problem with it is the deleterious effects it's had on society.

If folks believe it to be factual, or proven, it gives license to behave as animals, and accept such behavior with a shrug.

1. If science requires testable evidence, Darwin's theory has no such evidence.

a. “The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted.” (Paul, C.R.C, “The Adequacy of the Fossil Record,” 1982, p. 75.)




2. There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.


3. But there is clear evidence of organisms having arrived complete and unique.

a. “The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 238-239.)




4. “The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” ~ Emile Zuckerkandl – biologist (considered one of the founders of the field of molecular evolution). Zuckerkandl has written harshly about religious folks, but just consider what he is saying by ‘eluded analysis.’ Does this mean that the theory of evolution inspires confidence? Hardly. And this from THE expert himself!




5. Further, I can show a relationship of the thinking of Darwinians and Marxists. There is a political reason to advance the theory of evolution.

a. “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”



We have come full circle. The Church is correctly blamed for the Inquisition....yet you Darwinists, today, burn careers at the stake if fellow scientists disclaim Darwin's theory.


I don't care if you continue to believe it, merely accept that it is faith, not fact.

i accept nothink.

read about the grant's research and come back to me.

I'll get right on that....as soon as you show the lab work that resulted in changes of one species into another.

Is there evidence that paleontologists can provide?
Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specializes in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution. Hmmm….doesn’t seem to help Darwin’s theory, eh?

Dr Carroll is the author or co-author of a large number of scientific papers on fossil vertebrates, as well as a number of important monographs, text-books and more general books. His areas of research include the origins of terrestrial vertebrates, the origin and early evolutionary radiation of amniotes, the origin and interrelationships of the Lissamphibian groups, the anatomy and relationship of Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles, large scale patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, and the use of Mesozoic marine reptiles as a model for investigating factors controlling the patterns and rates of evolution.
Robert L. Carroll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ooops.....did I inadvertently insult your religion?

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

 

[percysunshine]

I think it is about the right moment to have a global warming debate...

 

[Truthmatters]

it would be painful to be as stupid as the op

LMAO, I totally agree.

another agreeing here.

she actually posted once about how humans are basically NOT GOOD.

I dont know why some of these religious people think everyone has to share their baseless myths.

 

[percysunshine]

it would be painful to be as stupid as the op

LMAO, I totally agree.

another agreeing here.

she actually posted once about how humans are basically NOT GOOD.

I dont know why some of these religious people think everyone has to share their baseless myths.

So we can put you on the global warming denialist side of the ledger.

Thanks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

i accept nothink.

read about the grant's research and come back to me.

I'll get right on that....as soon as you show the lab work that resulted in changes of one species into another.

Is there evidence that paleontologists can provide?
Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specializes in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution. Hmmm….doesn’t seem to help Darwin’s theory, eh?

Dr Carroll is the author or co-author of a large number of scientific papers on fossil vertebrates, as well as a number of important monographs, text-books and more general books. His areas of research include the origins of terrestrial vertebrates, the origin and early evolutionary radiation of amniotes, the origin and interrelationships of the Lissamphibian groups, the anatomy and relationship of Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles, large scale patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, and the use of Mesozoic marine reptiles as a model for investigating factors controlling the patterns and rates of evolution.
Robert L. Carroll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ooops.....did I inadvertently insult your religion?

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

Sometimes it seems that you have a passing acquaintance with science, Rocks.

Then you try to pass off this stuff.

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."
That should be the end of any respect given to this source...and to you.


Go on to read "The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers...What evidence is necessary to show that a change produced in a population of organisms constitutes a speciation event? The answer to this question will depend on which species definition applies to the organisms involved."



Aren't you ashaimed?

BTW....check out the Einstein's that agree with you....should be a clue.

 

[Truthmatters]

PC your whole religion depends on trashing sceince and has for hundereds of years

 

[PoliticalChic]

i accept nothink.

read about the grant's research and come back to me.

I'll get right on that....as soon as you show the lab work that resulted in changes of one species into another.

Is there evidence that paleontologists can provide?
Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specializes in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution. Hmmm….doesn’t seem to help Darwin’s theory, eh?

Dr Carroll is the author or co-author of a large number of scientific papers on fossil vertebrates, as well as a number of important monographs, text-books and more general books. His areas of research include the origins of terrestrial vertebrates, the origin and early evolutionary radiation of amniotes, the origin and interrelationships of the Lissamphibian groups, the anatomy and relationship of Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles, large scale patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, and the use of Mesozoic marine reptiles as a model for investigating factors controlling the patterns and rates of evolution.
Robert L. Carroll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ooops.....did I inadvertently insult your religion?

No, once again you proved that you sophistry is just that.

Punctated equilibrium. No paleontologist that I have ever listened to, or spoke with, contends that evolution moves in anything but spurts and jerks. One has only to look at the record in geology of the major and minor extinction periods to understand why.

As for the rest of your nonsense, the science of genetics has shown beyond any reasonable doubt the evolution occured, is occuring, and will continue to occur as long as life remains on Earth.

Prove it, or use the 'Al Gore consensus' argument. 'The debate is over.'

Fossil proof doesn't exist.
What does that tell you?


1. Let's see you deal with this,
"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


2. Or this, from Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion,"...

Then, there are the computer models of evolution: Computer simulations of Darwinian evolution fail when they are honest and succeed only when they are not. Thomas Ray has for years been conducting computer experiments in an artificial environment that he has designated Tierra. . . . Sandra Blakeslee, writing for the New York Times, reported the results under the headline “Computer ‘Life Form’ Mutates in an Evolution Experiment: Natural Selection Is Found at Work in a Digital World.”

a. What these computer experiments do reveal is a principle far more significant than those of Darwin: There is a sucker born every minute.

b. Darwin’s theory of evolution is less science and more ideology; it is the creation myth of our time.


It's your (deluded) belief, Rocks, but not science.



3. And, to continue with the ‘science as religion’ theme, consider the views of research biochemists: “…many difficulties arise in the claim of chemical autosynthetic events, that must be imagined to have led to functional biopolymers. These problems have been succinctly analyzed by Joyce and Orgel (1999) who concluded that the "de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive Earth would have been a near- miracle." http://www.arrhenius.ucsd.edu/pub/lifeofchao.html

a. A ‘near-miracle’ is a term of art. It is like a near-miss. A miss, it should be recalled, is as good as a mile.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC your whole religion depends on trashing sceince and has for hundereds of years

No, Ms. Truthie....I was trashing you, not science.


But I don't mind teaching you.

 

[bripat9643]

6. Why do so many people believe the pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressive Darwinist view? One reason is they are convinced that science has proven Darwinism to be true. Sadly, however, many scientists are unaware of the large body of evidence supporting creationism. And numerous scientists recognize that, at best, the view common among elite scientists is unscientific. Shallis (Shallis, "In the Eye of a Storm." New Scientist, January 19, pp. 42-43) argues that: “It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. . . . This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion .”

Horseshit. There is no evidence that supports creationism. None. Those that claim there is are almost never scientists, and the ones that are scientists are not biologists. Every last bit of biological, zoological and paleontological evidence supports evolution.

As for the rest of your screed, even if every last word of it is true, it doesn't undermine the evidence for evolution. It simply points out that many people find the facts of evolution distressing. The truth is often distressing.

P.S. Conservatives don't help their credibility by spewing this ridiculous anti-evolution, anti-science crap. You come off looking like religious nutburgers.