More like edited, parsed and falsified ''quotes'' means one has lost the debate and simultaneously lost at life.
Have you considered joining Francis Hitching when he goes dowsing to learn a trade?
Real Science…Not Darwin
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
More like edited, parsed and falsified ''quotes'' means one has lost the debate and simultaneously lost at life.
Have you considered joining Francis Hitching when he goes dowsing to learn a trade?
What evidence did Francis Hitching find when dowsing?
Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.I didn'tYup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!www.dictionary.com
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Is the quote correct?
Of course it is.
We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski
I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
esalla
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #224
Evolution is not a credible theory because all life even the simplest forms are comprised of thousands of lines of code that Darwin never saw nor can this code ever spontaneously generateWait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.I didn'tYup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Is the quote correct?
Of course it is.
We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski
I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
- Thread starter
- #225
I didn't believe you'd apologize, I just wanted to have you remind all what a lowlives your sort are.
- Thread starter
- #226
Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.I didn'tYup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Is the quote correct?
Of course it is.
We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski
I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
I wrote this earlier:
The Biology Term For History
One of the most needy of posters wrote:
“You're going to post something other than an attack on evolution? It will explain what we find in the natural world without resorting to Darwinian evolution or supernatural intervention? I eagerly await...”
The Pretense Called Evolution
So…..the biology term for history? Evolution.
- Thread starter
- #227
Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.I didn'tYup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Is the quote correct?
Of course it is.
We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski
I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
What's the distinction you're trying to make?
Odd that you think public school children are misinformed about valid scientific theories like gravity, biological evolution, medicine curing disease, etc.Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.I didn'tYup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Is the quote correct?
Of course it is.
We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski
I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
Your alternative would be teaching a flat earth, a 6.000 year old planet and talking snakes?
And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.I didn'tYup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Is the quote correct?
Of course it is.
We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski
I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
- Thread starter
- #231
And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.I didn'tYup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Is the quote correct?
Of course it is.
We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski
I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
"and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
I never lie.
But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 14,905
- 5,014
- 210
Hmm, ..let's see here.. 1983, 1982, 1982, yep, yep,.. Help, I think someone went and got themself stuck back in the early 80's and can't get up!
- Thread starter
- #233
In "The Plausibility of Evolution," Harvard evo-devo advocate Marc Kirschner and Berkeley's John Gerhart give this example: when drought killed most of the finches on the Galapagos in 1977, survivors were found to have a slightly larger beak...traced to more of a protein Bmp4 in their embryos.
So...researchers tried to add Bmp4 to chick embryos...and found changes in beak shape!
a. But...not only did they not produce a new breed of chicken with different beaks, but in the Galapagos, as soon as the rains returned....guess what? The average beak size reverted to normal. Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin'... [Science. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
and Oscillating selection on Darwin's finches
and "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time," p. 104-105, 176, by Jonathan Weiner
So....experiments show developmental changes....but not evolution.
There is an abundant collection of transitional fossils. Here’s one example.And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.I didn'tYup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Is the quote correct?
Of course it is.
We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski
I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
"and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
I never lie.
But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
The Harun Yahya madrassah will have you believe otherwise, but religious extremism is not a valid excuse for your ignorance.
Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil
Archaeopteryx was an evolutionary link between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Scientists long thought Archaeopteryx was the first bird, but recent discoveries have made them rethink that status.
Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil
By Joseph Castro - Live Science Contributor March 14, 2018
Because you lack some basic cognitive skills, you apparently missed the connections between adaptation to an environment and the process known as fitness for survival.
What’s another description for “developmental changes to an environment”?
Last edited:
As usual, your “quotes” are stolen from non-scientists.
Is Jonathan Weiner a dowser?
“Jonathan Weiner is a writer of non-fiction books based on his biological observations, focusing particularly on evolution in the Galápagos Islands, genetics, and the environment. His latest book is "Long for This World: The Strange Science of Immortality" a look at the scientific search for the Fountain of Youth.”
And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.I didn'tYup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Is the quote correct?
Of course it is.
We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski
I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
"and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
I never lie.
But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
Oh really?
Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?
Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal
Guess what? This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals
So explain to me please how you don't lie?
- Thread starter
- #238
And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.I didn'tYup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Is the quote correct?
Of course it is.
We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski
I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
"and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
I never lie.
But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.Oh really?
Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?
Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal
Guess what? This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals
So explain to me please how you don't lie?
"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
"In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor
Nope, not how it works. I directly contradicted every single one of the assertions made by the people you quoted saying something almost 40 years ago in response to my post and sourced it. You don't get a mulligan because you were caught lying about every single thing you said.And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be.Wait you don't have a problem with evolution? Just the idea of specification, transitional forms etc.etc. I think that if you make your arguments a little bit more convoluted they'll turn into a pretzel.First quote. Søren Løvtrup - Wikipedia. This person beliefs in evolution. His main beef seems to be that Darwin wasn't the guy who first proposed it.I didn'tYup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
I didn't "miss" your point. I find that your point doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. I have given you an instance were specification was witnessed. You simply asserted it to be false although the article in Science was provided.Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.
1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.
This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "
.....is not how a species is defined.
This is:
Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.
Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.
First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”
If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.
Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, Speciation, p. 25–39.
The dictionary agrees:
Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.
No new species has ever been observed.
I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.
I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.
You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.
I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.
They have no motive to lie.
Darwinists do.
Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.
Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
- Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
- Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]
View attachment 356542
I believe you've missed the point.
The Darwin thesis provides a tremendous opportunity for experimentation.
I'm for experimentation.....that the basis of real science.
My point.....again.....is that there is more evidence against the plan Darwin provided than there is for Darwin: speciation has never been witnessed.
Yet.....it is taught as fact. And the vituperation is merciless if one says anything in dispute of Darwin......that's not science.
You should ask your self why.
"It's shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there'd be a few heated comments. I didn't expect so many of the 600+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks came not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin! " Scientists should be humble, not arrogant
Then you came back with citing the credentials of a scientist and a quote about him questioning if a hypothesis within the realm of evolution was substantiated. In 1992 no less. Almost thirty years ago. A ten-minute search showed him NOT questioning the validity of evolution at all, although that's how you portrayed him.
Talking to you on this board provides me the answer as to why you receive so much hate when discussing evolution. The reason seems to me the simple fact that you are dishonest. You quote-mine, ignore any argument that doesn't fit your narrative, and are perfectly willing to simply lie about your sources.
"...the reasons for rejecting Darwin's proposal were many, but first of all that many innovations cannot possibly come into existence through accumulation of many small steps, and even if they can, natural selection cannot accomplish it, because incipient and intermediate stages are not advantageous."Lovtrup, S. (1987)Darwinism: The Refutation of a MythCroom Helm Ltd., Beckingham, Kent, p. 275
"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. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/
"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).
It's really a very simple question, one that should occur to any individual familiar with the above: why the demand that Darwin's theory be imposed on the uninformed?
Why the palpable hostility to any criticism of Darwin?
Second quote.
Stating that most macro-mutations are lethal is a, without context since you gave a dead link b, not a rebuff of evolution since "most" implies there are some times when it's not. Also, the author did postdoctoral work in evolutionary neurobiology which requires knowing and applying evolutionary theory.
Third quote Hollie already went to town on the author. Also a dead link by the way.
As to your "simple question" Because Darwin's theory is the best and at the moment only peer-reviewed model to explain the origin of species. It's supported in numerous fields of science it's predictive and falsifiable. And there's plenty of "critique" within the field of evolution. None of that critique affects the central assertions made by Darwin.
By the way, there are still problems in the theory of gravity, do you suggest we shouldn't teach our kids basic physics now?
Is the quote correct?
Of course it is.
We're not talking about evolution....we're talking about Darwinism.
It's a false religion....you bow to it.....and you still won't confront the question I've asked.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”ch.6
. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
Darwin, "On The Origin of Speices," chapter nine
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.”
Philip Zaleski
I don't care if Darwin didn't have all the answers over 250 years ago. I don't care if we don't have all the answers now. I don't know is often the most correct answer in science. Unless and until a better theory than evolution by means of natural selection comes along, that is what should be taught for the simple reason that it works.
As to your Zaleski quote, he's right. Physicists don't need to defend gravity because gravity is not contrary to scripture. Evolution is, and as such it's constantly being attacked by people who have no interest in fighting in the arena of science and are even less interested in being honest.
You should care that innocent children are misinformed in mandated government school.
Darwin's theory is used by anything from genetics and biology to computer software design but somehow for whatever reason, you don't want it to be taught in schools because you can find scientist have had problems with some aspects of it. Not once acknowledging that that's just the nature of the scientific method and at no point, the central tenants have ever been successfully challenged.
Every quote I provided showed problems "with the assertions put forth by Darwinism.:
"and outright lies you have not established what that misinformation would be."
I never lie.
But watch how easily I prove you are lying:
. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.
". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another." Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.Oh really?
Guess what? This is a lie. What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It?
Guess what? This is a lie. Pakicetus | fossil mammal genus What Was the Ambulocetus Prehistoric Whale, and How Big Was It? https://www.researchgate.net/public...ngtonocetus_Cetacea_Mammalia_from_Kutch_India Basilosaurid | fossil mammal
Guess what? This is a lie. Meet the Ancient Reptile that Gave Rise to Mammals
So explain to me please how you don't lie?
"And yet besides some quotes that you posted without context and by people who have no problem with the assertions put forth by Darwinism..."
"In Darwin's time, paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive.
"He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....
... all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz: Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor
Last edited:
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 14,905
- 5,014
- 210
Similar threads
