Real Science…Not Darwin

[Grumblenuts]

Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history.

Timeline of "recorded history" --bzzzt. Done.
Timeline of the evolutionary history of life------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------{...snip...}--------------

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

Darwin's theory of evolution makes sense to me. Much more than anything else on the topic has. I'll go along with Darwin for the most part. Although as a kid in Sunday school I was once told I was going to hell for thinking so. I suppose that Sunday school teacher had never heard the passage judge not yet ye be judged.
Of course that very same Sunday school teacher had said that it was a shame they didn't give Hitler more time so he could have wiped out all the Jews.
There just aren't any hypocrites quite as hypocritical as Southern Babtists. Well I suppose it could be debatable as to who the biggest drooling idiots are.

"Darwin's theory of evolution makes sense to me. "

It may make sense, but it has been proven false by the evidence.


Darwin....from simple to complex.....all life from a common ancestor.

NOT.

Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)


Get that: all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Poor, poor Darwin.



Even from Time magazine:

"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."
Extrait de:

 

[PoliticalChic]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh

You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

Well, see, you say that.

I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.

sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry

You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.

no----it is due to my having read your posts.
Here's one----approx "... no speciation noted in recorded
history.... " Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo development
of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable
to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able
to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION. Darwin wrote his
stuff a bare 120 years ago. SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.
However---mutations happen ALL DA time. Most mutations are silent,
some are fatal. and some do produce a unique change in phenotype
which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous. To the present
time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation

"....descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct...."


You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be more wrong.



Let's see how your knowledge of speciation compares to experts in the field, such as Mayr, Orr, and Coyne......


As always, I include sources:



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, , p. 25–39.


And certainly not phenotypic differences.


"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475



Even the dictionary puts you in your place.....

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

chic MY discussion of species is ENTIRELY consistent with that of your
"experts" and my discussion of the issue of speciation is also consistent.
Your problem is that you fail to understand VERY SIMPLE
words like "phenotype". It is very clear that biology is just not your
field. Did you pass plane geometry? At no time have you ever manage
to "disprove" evolution. Fret not----there are similar people who insist
that they have "disproved" Freud. They struggle in the same manner that
you struggle

No sense trying to dig yourself out of the hole you're buried in.


Phenotypes are not part of the definition of speciation.

The inability to interbreed is the sine qua non.


I can't force you to learn.




"At no time have you ever manage
to "disprove" evolution. "

My intent and my success is in disproving Darwin's version.


Darwin....from simple to complex.....all life from a common ancestor.

NOT.

Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)


Get that: all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Poor, poor Darwin.



Even from Time magazine:

"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."
Extrait de:

 

[Hollie]

1. variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use a term describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the examples you use.

2. Another term you don’t understand is speciation. That’s not surprising as the fundie ministries you use as the sources of your cutting and pasting have a predefined agenda that is announced by the “Statement of Faith” that is common to the various fundie ministries.

3. Observed Instances of Speciation

4. Some More Observed Speciation Events

5. CB910: New species

 

[Hollie]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh

You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

Well, see, you say that.

I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.

sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry

You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.

no----it is due to my having read your posts.
Here's one----approx "... no speciation noted in recorded
history.... " Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo development
of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable
to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able
to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION. Darwin wrote his
stuff a bare 120 years ago. SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.
However---mutations happen ALL DA time. Most mutations are silent,
some are fatal. and some do produce a unique change in phenotype
which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous. To the present
time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation

"....descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct...."


You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be more wrong.



Let's see how your knowledge of speciation compares to experts in the field, such as Mayr, Orr, and Coyne......


As always, I include sources:



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, , p. 25–39.


And certainly not phenotypic differences.


"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475



Even the dictionary puts you in your place.....

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

chic MY discussion of species is ENTIRELY consistent with that of your
"experts" and my discussion of the issue of speciation is also consistent.
Your problem is that you fail to understand VERY SIMPLE
words like "phenotype". It is very clear that biology is just not your
field. Did you pass plane geometry? At no time have you ever manage
to "disprove" evolution. Fret not----there are similar people who insist
that they have "disproved" Freud. They struggle in the same manner that
you struggle

No sense trying to dig yourself out of the hole you're buried in.


Phenotypes are not part of the definition of speciation.

The inability to interbreed is the sine qua non.


I can't force you to learn.




"At no time have you ever manage
to "disprove" evolution. "

My intent and my success is in disproving Darwin's version.


Darwin....from simple to complex.....all life from a common ancestor.

NOT.

Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)


Get that: all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."

Poor, poor Darwin.



Even from Time magazine:

"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."
Extrait de:

I hadn’t realized Time Magazine was a science journal. The stuff you home skoolurs learn, eh?

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

Soon as you see REAL anything you know it ain't gonna be real at all. ^ Case in point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

Soon as you see REAL anything you know it ain't gonna be real at all. ^ Case in point.

Are we discussing your education?

 

[Old Curmudgeon]

I hadn’t realized Time Magazine was a science journal. The stuff you home skoolurs learn, eh?

You may come sit by me, my dear. Let us throw peanuts at the monkeys together.

 

[Taz]

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

So what's the truth? The White man's bible?

 

[alang1216]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

Kevin Kelly has been a writer, photographer, conservationist, and student of Asian and digital culture. The the finest credentials for this thread.

We've never seen new species appear? Exactly wrong and the fossil record proves it. If you go back in time you find many kinds of fossils but no primate fossils. Today primate species abound. Where did they come from?

 

[Grumblenuts]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

Soon as you see REAL anything you know it ain't gonna be real at all. ^ Case in point.

Welcome aboard, fellow old fart!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

So what's the truth? The White man's bible?

The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.


As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.


The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

Kevin Kelly has been a writer, photographer, conservationist, and student of Asian and digital culture. The the finest credentials for this thread.

We've never seen new species appear? Exactly wrong and the fossil record proves it. If you go back in time you find many kinds of fossils but no primate fossils. Today primate species abound. Where did they come from?

And?




"We've never seen new species appear?"

That's correct.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


And...
"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski


Never.

 

[Hollie]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

Kevin Kelly has been a writer, photographer, conservationist, and student of Asian and digital culture. The the finest credentials for this thread.

We've never seen new species appear? Exactly wrong and the fossil record proves it. If you go back in time you find many kinds of fossils but no primate fossils. Today primate species abound. Where did they come from?

And?




"We've never seen new species appear?"

That's correct.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


And...
"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski


Never.

You're not conversant at all. You're a fraud who cuts and pastes edited, parsed and phony "quotes" from Harun Yahya and some of the most notoriously crank fundie zealots.

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for Kenyon

Dean H. Kenyon is professor emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, and one of the grand old men of the modern form of creationism known as Intelligent Design. Kenyon is, for instance, the author of the infamous Of Pandas and People (with Percival Davis), the textbook that laid the foundation for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (after being quickly turned from a creationist book into an Intelligent Design book, which was possible since the views are the same). And yes, there is a pattern here – Kenyon, as most proponents of ID, are concerned with getting creationism into schools, writing textbooks, popular books (especially for children), and participating in debates. The ID movement isn’t, and has never been, about doing science. It should be mentioned that Kenyon still subscribes to young earth creationism.

Kenyon first started promoting creationism (the young earth variant) in the 1980s, calling it “scientific creationism” and trying to teach it in his classes at San Francisco State. That didn’t go down particularly well with his more scientifically minded colleagues. The fact that they determined that creationism couldn’t be taught as science didn’t exactly change Kenyon’s mind, so he continued teaching it in other courses, leading to some major controversies at the university (where Kenyon claimed that “objections to his teaching rested on a positivist view of what constitutes legitimate science,” which is just a weasel phrase for “I should be allowed to teach my intuitions and convictions as being scientific regardless of whether they are backed up by evidence”). In the 1980s he became infamous for his involvement in the standard-setting McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard courtcases. In fact, Kenyon pulled out right before he was expected to testify in the first case. In the latter, Kenyon supplied an affidavit which ended up constituting the main part of the defense.

In the 1990s Kenyon became affiliated with the Discovery Institute. He is currently board member for the Kolbe Center, a Catholic YEC group.
Diagnosis: A grand old man of the wingnut fight against reality when reality don’t align with their wishful thinking. Has made major impacts and must still be considered dangerous.

 

[Hollie]

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

So what's the truth? The White man's bible?

The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.


As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.


The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.

And...

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

(for a nice description of the difference between skepticism and paranoid denialism, I recommend these three articles: here, here, and here.)

 

[alang1216]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

Kevin Kelly has been a writer, photographer, conservationist, and student of Asian and digital culture. The the finest credentials for this thread.

We've never seen new species appear? Exactly wrong and the fossil record proves it. If you go back in time you find many kinds of fossils but no primate fossils. Today primate species abound. Where did they come from?

And?




"We've never seen new species appear?"

That's correct.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


And...
"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski


Never.

Yet it is undeniable that it happened. Even you don't deny that it happened and you've admitted you don't know how it came about. Occam's Razor says that evolution has occurred since there is no other evidence or explanation for how species came into existence.

 

[Hollie]

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

So what's the truth? The White man's bible?

The truth is that Darwin's theory is false.


As of this moment, there is no explanation for speciation.


The real question is why academia, government school, doesn't admit that.

I'm afraid you provide no supporting documentation for your opinions. My assertions about biological evolution derive from the sciences of paleontology, anthropology, geology, oceanography, physics, archaeology, and other branches of science that conflict with the Bible. If you have evidence for the existence of the Gods, evidence of the Gods creating humans 6,000 years ago, evidence of any Biblical miracles, please present that evidence.

We discriminate between ideas based on evidence and reason. There are a certain number of ideas in science in which we have such overwhelming evidence that confidence is of the highest attainable level. Biological evolution is one of those ideas. There will always be a significant number of people who for religious or philosophical reasons reject that idea. But there is a reason the argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, because it tells us nothing about what is actually true.

I noted that you continue to be confused about terms such as abiogenesis (the beginning of biological life) and Darwinian (biological) evolution because your earlier post made no distinction between those two processes. As I noted previously, you confuse macro-evolution with speciation which has abundant evidence.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

 

[alang1216]

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski

More evidence FOR evolution. Wheels have not evolved since the structures that might lead up to wheels offer no competitive advantage to the animal, just as the ToE would say. If a species was just created from scratch you'd expect to see wheels and a host of other bizarre structures. But you don't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

Kevin Kelly has been a writer, photographer, conservationist, and student of Asian and digital culture. The the finest credentials for this thread.

We've never seen new species appear? Exactly wrong and the fossil record proves it. If you go back in time you find many kinds of fossils but no primate fossils. Today primate species abound. Where did they come from?

And?




"We've never seen new species appear?"

That's correct.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


And...
"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski


Never.

Yet it is undeniable that it happened. Even you don't deny that it happened and you've admitted you don't know how it came about. Occam's Razor says that evolution has occurred since there is no other evidence or explanation for how species came into existence.

That has nothing to do with the discussion.

Get lost.