Self-Serving Liberal "Facts"

[PoliticalChic]

[

"... in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief."


Did you change the subject because I identified you as a liar?


Good.

Are you accusing me of lying when I said this about you?

"... in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief."

On November 14th you said this:

"One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence."

So, tell me. Where's the lie?

Link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/324330-on-the-disparity-of-species-5.html

Very simple....Darwin's theory is what I attack, as it is without proof.

There are numerous theories of evolution.....some of which have merit, and have at least as much 'proof' as Darwin's did.


As you are ignorant of the details, let me point out that the most popular proponent of evolution was the Marxist Stephen J. Gould, who based his neo-Darwinist "Punctuated Equilibrium" variation of Darwin's theory on Marx's concept of history.



QED, your claim that I attack 'science' or 'evolution' is a lie.

It is exactly what I have learned to expect from you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Expecting our school systems to be healthier than the communities from whence they draw their students is, of course, asinine.

Now seriously, PC.

You do not already know this?

Seems you are oblivious of the results from poor Asian communities....or the turn of the century Jewish communities on NY's Lower East Side.

Somehow Liberal folks have perfected selective memory.

What is imperative is the immediate removal of Liberals and Progressives from any contact with decisions about education.

Seriously.




1. Progressives claimed that intelligence was so fixed, and so important, that it had to be the basis for keeping certain races from entering the country, and to suppress the reproduction of races already living here.


2. Almost synonymous with 'the Progressive Era' is the idea that science was the basis for the ideas behind it. The impetus for the scientific views was the huge European immigration, especially the shift from Northern and Western Europeans, to Southern and Eastern Europeans. Unhappiness with the way these new waves looked, or behaved, scientists leapt to explain how inferior they were! For same, came the efficient manner of dealing with these problems. The start was the accumulation of data on crime rates, disease rates, mental test scores, school performance.

a. 100,000 soldier were tested during WWI, and those of English, German, and Irish ancestry scored considerably higher than those of Russian, Italian, and Polish.
Brigham, "A Study of American Intelligence," (1923), p. xx.

b. Carl Brigham, authority on mental tests, and creator of the College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Test- claimed that the Army test 'disproved the popular belief that the Jew is highly intelligent.'
Brigham, Ibid, p. 190.

c. Black children in Youngstown, Ohio, scored higher than children of Polish, Greek, and other immigrants there.
Pinter and Keller, "Intelligence Tests of Foreign Children," Journal of Educational Psychology,(April 1922), p. 215.

d. What to do with these 'facts'?
For progressives and liberals, "theirs was the vision of the anointed as surrogate decision- makers....[including] an expanded role for government and an expanded role for judges to re-interpret the Constitution so as to loosen the restrictions on the powers of government."
Sowell, "Intellectuals and Race," p. 26.






3. Progressives used the fact that groups with lower IQs tended to have large families as a reason for eugenics, i.e., that over time, this would lower the national IQ. Actually, research in more than a dozen countries showed that the average performance on IQ tests rose substantially- by a full standard deviation or more- in a generation or two.
James R. Flynn, "The Mean IQ of Americans: Massive Gains 1932-1978, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 95, pp. 29-51; and Flynn, "Massive Gains in 14 Nations: What IQ Really Means," Psychological Bulletin, vol. 101, pp. 171-191.




Here's a fact for you: the size of the font is unrelated to the veracity of your post....as proven above.

One would hope that with the new year, I will see an improvement in the content of your posts.


On the bright side, you may continue to count on me for the education you so sorely lack.

Seriously.

So the solution seems to be allow only Asians or Jewish kids from the lower east side to go to our schools. Good idea.

reggie, you do so much better when you don't resort to what you intend as humor.

 

[Whereisup]

I assume that you are speaking towards the privatization agenda of conservatives which involves having private businesses do all government services paid with grants from the government. This is quite different from the privatization of government owned businesses which is common, and involves selling the stock of the company on the market. Those privatized businesses then support themselves, rather than having the government support them.

The record in the United States of corporations doing work under contract with the government, paid by the government, is not good. Some have worked out, but often, the business charges too much money and does very poor work.

That isn't exactly evil. In America, businesses are supposed to make profits as large as possible, so overcharging and doing inadequate work are just part of the business ideology that most people believe in.

However, if the above happens again, then having vouchers to give to schools run by private businesses would worsen education. Businesses have long known how to temporarily do a good job to gain customers. It happens very frequently. A business will put out a good product, and then when it has brand reputation and many customers, it cheapens the product.

So to try to get America to change to all private schools, a number of them are doing a bit better than low income area public schools. That isn't hard to do, because those schools also only select students who will probably do well.

However, we could not expect that to continue once American schools were turned over to private corporations. Then, to make larger profits, they would reduce the quality of their schools.

And that would be very serious because high quality education is vital for America's future welfare. We can get by with appliances that don't last as long, clothing which no longer has colorfast dye, food of reduced quality, and so forth, but we can't get by with a worse educational system.

There are some old private profit making schools which do a good job. However, they cost as much as college does, and I doubt that you are thinking of vouchers that large.

Jim

 

[PoliticalChic]

I assume that you are speaking towards the privatization agenda of conservatives which involves having private businesses do all government services paid with grants from the government. This is quite different from the privatization of government owned businesses which is common, and involves selling the stock of the company on the market. Those privatized businesses then support themselves, rather than having the government support them.

The record in the United States of corporations doing work under contract with the government, paid by the government, is not good. Some have worked out, but often, the business charges too much money and does very poor work.

That isn't exactly evil. In America, businesses are supposed to make profits as large as possible, so overcharging and doing inadequate work are just part of the business ideology that most people believe in.

However, if the above happens again, then having vouchers to give to schools run by private businesses would worsen education. Businesses have long known how to temporarily do a good job to gain customers. It happens very frequently. A business will put out a good product, and then when it has brand reputation and many customers, it cheapens the product.

So to try to get America to change to all private schools, a number of them are doing a bit better than low income area public schools. That isn't hard to do, because those schools also only select students who will probably do well.

However, we could not expect that to continue once American schools were turned over to private corporations. Then, to make larger profits, they would reduce the quality of their schools.

And that would be very serious because high quality education is vital for America's future welfare. We can get by with appliances that don't last as long, clothing which no longer has colorfast dye, food of reduced quality, and so forth, but we can't get by with a worse educational system.

There are some old private profit making schools which do a good job. However, they cost as much as college does, and I doubt that you are thinking of vouchers that large.

Jim

1. "I assume that you are speaking towards the privatization agenda of conservatives which involves having private businesses do all government services paid with grants from the government."

2. "However, if the above happens again, then having vouchers to give to schools run by private businesses would worsen education."




"U.S. students lag around average on international science, math and reading test... U.S. teenagers were average in reading and science, their scores were below average in math, compared to 64 other countries and economies that participated in the 2012."
U.S. students lag around average on international science, math and reading test - The Washington Post



You've convinced me.....it is better to curse the darkness than to light one candle.


Good thing you dropped by.

 

[Whereisup]

Google 'homeschooling individual attention' and you will quickly find that one of the top reasons homeschoolers (which includes the author of this thread) give in their assertions of the merits of homeschooling

is the ability of the student to receive more individual attention.

Logically, based on the premise of this thread, the homeschooling OP doesn't herself believe that any such claim by homeschoolers has any merit.

To be fair, homeschooling isn't entirely unjustified.

Society can be crude, nasty, and brutish. Heck, there are lots of liberals in public education who complain about the bullying they endure from conservative counterparts who anti-intellectually believe in rugged individualism.

A homeschooled environment secures someone from this bullying. As long as the student has secondary influences, it really isn't a bad idea.

The problem is when homeschooled students have nothing else going for them. Then, they become socially alienated.

Homeschooling is as good as the knowledge of the parent, and other factors. That means that homeschooling can be better than public and private ordinary schools, or worse. Goethe, a great writer in Germany in the past, who has the same place in German literature as Shakespeare in English literature, was taught by his father. At the other end of the scale, I know a homeschooling mother who didn't teach her sons very much and took all her sons' tests for them.

I don't know the numbers. However, probably some homeschooling these days is quite good, some is quite bad, and some is in the middle.

There is something strange going on with bullying. It's not acceptable because it leaves many people with emotional scars and future problems coping.

But, a very large percentage of the best scientific, scholarly, and literary minds of humanity in history have been bullied in school.

One possibility is that they were so talented that they just survived the bullying.

Another possibility however is that the bullying made their creative work possible. Conforming to the current beliefs and ideas keeps people from coming up with new and different ideas, and people have an emotional need to conform( there has been startling research showing this).

So to be a major scientist, scholar, writer, etc., one has to be or become an outsider. Bullying tends to make a person into an outsider, and that might make it possible for people to not conform, but instead come up with ideas which are quite different, and often jeered at at first. Note that this is only a hypothesis so needs further research.

If the hypothesis is true however, then we need to find something better than bullying to break people out of conformity to their surrounding peers and the surrounding culture.

Jim

 

[PoliticalChic]

Google 'homeschooling individual attention' and you will quickly find that one of the top reasons homeschoolers (which includes the author of this thread) give in their assertions of the merits of homeschooling

is the ability of the student to receive more individual attention.

Logically, based on the premise of this thread, the homeschooling OP doesn't herself believe that any such claim by homeschoolers has any merit.

To be fair, homeschooling isn't entirely unjustified.

Society can be crude, nasty, and brutish. Heck, there are lots of liberals in public education who complain about the bullying they endure from conservative counterparts who anti-intellectually believe in rugged individualism.

A homeschooled environment secures someone from this bullying. As long as the student has secondary influences, it really isn't a bad idea.

The problem is when homeschooled students have nothing else going for them. Then, they become socially alienated.

Homeschooling is as good as the knowledge of the parent, and other factors. That means that homeschooling can be better than public and private ordinary schools, or worse. Goethe, a great writer in Germany in the past, who has the same place in German literature as Shakespeare in English literature, was taught by his father. At the other end of the scale, I know a homeschooling mother who didn't teach her sons very much and took all her sons' tests for them.

I don't know the numbers. However, probably some homeschooling these days is quite good, some is quite bad, and some is in the middle.

There is something strange going on with bullying. It's not acceptable because it leaves many people with emotional scars and future problems coping.

But, a very large percentage of the best scientific, scholarly, and literary minds of humanity in history have been bullied in school.

One possibility is that they were so talented that they just survived the bullying.

Another possibility however is that the bullying made their creative work possible. Conforming to the current beliefs and ideas keeps people from coming up with new and different ideas, and people have an emotional need to conform( there has been startling research showing this).

So to be a major scientist, scholar, writer, etc., one has to be or become an outsider. Bullying tends to make a person into an outsider, and that might make it possible for people to not conform, but instead come up with ideas which are quite different, and often jeered at at first. Note that this is only a hypothesis so needs further research.

If the hypothesis is true however, then we need to find something better than bullying to break people out of conformity to their surrounding peers and the surrounding culture.

Jim

National Average Percentile Scores
Subtest Homeschool Public School
Reading 89 50
Language 84 50
Math 84 50
Science 86 50
Social Studies 84 50
Corea 88 50
Compositeb 86 50
a. Core is a combination of Reading, Language, and Math.
b. Composite is a combination of all subtests that the student took on the test.
HSLDA: New Nationwide Study Confirms Homeschool Academic Achievement

 

[Whereisup]

1. "I assume that you are speaking towards the privatization agenda of conservatives which involves having private businesses do all government services paid with grants from the government."

2. "However, if the above happens again, then having vouchers to give to schools run by private businesses would worsen education."

"U.S. students lag around average on international science, math and reading test... U.S. teenagers were average in reading and science, their scores were below average in math, compared to 64 other countries and economies that participated in the 2012."
U.S. students lag around average on international science, math and reading test - The Washington Post

You've convinced me.....it is better to curse the darkness than to light one candle.

Good thing you dropped by.

I'm not cursing business. Business does important things. I am just being objective about the effects of mixing education with making profits.

We do need to improve education. Remember that my position is that we should have class sizes of five or six children per teacher. I didn't actually say in public or non-profit schools, but that is also what I believe.

We can have some computer learning, but there are learning skills that are too subtle to be taught by a computer, such as ways to chunk information most effectively, what parts of ideas are most important, and so forth. Those subtle skills are learned from an intellectual role model. Some parents have those skills and pass them on to their children almost by osmosis. Other parents don't, so when their children go to school, the children don't know how to learn most effectively. So an actual human intellectual role model is needed along with any computer learning.

In addition, computer learning programs shouldn't be based on just what looks like good lessons. They should be tested like anything else in science.

So if we want to teach a certain sub-skill with a computer, we should form groups of students. Then, we should have different people write up computer programs, a couple of dozen all different, to teach that sub-skill. Different groups of students should be tested on how well they learned the skill from the different candidate computer learning programs. The best two or three candidate computer programs should then go back to the people writing the programs for them to try to figure out why those programs did better at teaching the students than the other programs. Then, the writers should write up a set of improved computer learning programs, using the knowledge about the candidate programs that worked best the first time, and those should be tested on groups of students. This process could continue until there was no longer any improvement with rewriting programs.

The above is actually more like lighting hundreds of candles, if people will do what I suggest.

Jim

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

"... in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief."


Did you change the subject because I identified you as a liar?


Good.

Are you accusing me of lying when I said this about you?

"... in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief."

On November 14th you said this:

"One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence."

So, tell me. Where's the lie?

Link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/324330-on-the-disparity-of-species-5.html

Very simple....Darwin's theory is what I attack, as it is without proof.

There are numerous theories of evolution.....some of which have merit, and have at least as much 'proof' as Darwin's did.


As you are ignorant of the details, let me point out that the most popular proponent of evolution was the Marxist Stephen J. Gould, who based his neo-Darwinist "Punctuated Equilibrium" variation of Darwin's theory on Marx's concept of history.



QED, your claim that I attack 'science' or 'evolution' is a lie.

It is exactly what I have learned to expect from you.

"One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence."

No, you're claiming that Darwin's theory has no evidence to back it up.

That makes you either a fool or a liar, or to be more precise,

that simply adds to the evidence that you are a fool and a liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you accusing me of lying when I said this about you?

"... in the past has insisted that the scientific theory of Evolution is no better factually than a religious belief."

On November 14th you said this:

"One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence."

So, tell me. Where's the lie?

Link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/324330-on-the-disparity-of-species-5.html

Very simple....Darwin's theory is what I attack, as it is without proof.

There are numerous theories of evolution.....some of which have merit, and have at least as much 'proof' as Darwin's did.


As you are ignorant of the details, let me point out that the most popular proponent of evolution was the Marxist Stephen J. Gould, who based his neo-Darwinist "Punctuated Equilibrium" variation of Darwin's theory on Marx's concept of history.



QED, your claim that I attack 'science' or 'evolution' is a lie.

It is exactly what I have learned to expect from you.

"One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence."

No, you're claiming that Darwin's theory has no evidence to back it up.

That makes you either a fool or a liar, or to be more precise,

that simply adds to the evidence that you are a fool and a liar.

"No, you're claiming that Darwin's theory has no evidence to back it up.

That makes you either a fool or a liar, or to be more precise,..."


No....it clarifies the facts.....that, as usual, you are clueless.



Although it is daunting to have to deal with morons like you on a daily basis....

...there is the satisfaction of showing how very little you know.




1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.

Thus, one species must evolve into a more complex one.....that is Darwin's theory.



2.. So, "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."
speciation definition
The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."
speciation (biology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica




Now, observe how easily you are proven to be a moron and/or a liar.


3. " 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 this:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.”
(Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)


And this:

In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.




So....once again....egg on your face.


In the future, you should avoid embarrassing yourself by learning about a subject before you voice an opinion.....

....of course, that would require an ability not in evidence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Very simple....Darwin's theory is what I attack, as it is without proof.

There are numerous theories of evolution.....some of which have merit, and have at least as much 'proof' as Darwin's did.


As you are ignorant of the details, let me point out that the most popular proponent of evolution was the Marxist Stephen J. Gould, who based his neo-Darwinist "Punctuated Equilibrium" variation of Darwin's theory on Marx's concept of history.



QED, your claim that I attack 'science' or 'evolution' is a lie.

It is exactly what I have learned to expect from you.

"One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence."

No, you're claiming that Darwin's theory has no evidence to back it up.

That makes you either a fool or a liar, or to be more precise,

that simply adds to the evidence that you are a fool and a liar.

"No, you're claiming that Darwin's theory has no evidence to back it up.

That makes you either a fool or a liar, or to be more precise,..."


No....it clarifies the facts.....that, as usual, you are clueless.



Although it is daunting to have to deal with morons like you on a daily basis....

...there is the satisfaction of showing how very little you know.




1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.

Thus, one species must evolve into a more complex one.....that is Darwin's theory.



2.. So, "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."
speciation definition
The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."
speciation (biology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica




Now, observe how easily you are proven to be a moron and/or a liar.


3. " 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 this:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.”
(Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)


And this:

In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.




So....once again....egg on your face.


In the future, you should avoid embarrassing yourself by learning about a subject before you voice an opinion.....

....of course, that would require an ability not in evidence.

Well, you can start by disproving these observed incidents of speciation:

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Or you can concede you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence."

No, you're claiming that Darwin's theory has no evidence to back it up.

That makes you either a fool or a liar, or to be more precise,

that simply adds to the evidence that you are a fool and a liar.

"No, you're claiming that Darwin's theory has no evidence to back it up.

That makes you either a fool or a liar, or to be more precise,..."


No....it clarifies the facts.....that, as usual, you are clueless.



Although it is daunting to have to deal with morons like you on a daily basis....

...there is the satisfaction of showing how very little you know.




1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.

Thus, one species must evolve into a more complex one.....that is Darwin's theory.



2.. So, "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."
speciation definition
The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."
speciation (biology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica




Now, observe how easily you are proven to be a moron and/or a liar.


3. " 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 this:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.”
(Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)


And this:

In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.




So....once again....egg on your face.


In the future, you should avoid embarrassing yourself by learning about a subject before you voice an opinion.....

....of course, that would require an ability not in evidence.

Well, you can start by disproving these observed incidents of speciation:

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Or you can concede you don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I am speaking about, and to whom it is addressed: an idiot.

Understanding the misuse of 'speciation' in your link is far beyond your limited talents.

Such speciation is not the kind of speciation that would fit Darwin's mechanism for evolution.

An example:
In the 1920's, Russian biologist Georgii Karpechenko crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. They had the roots of the cabbage and the leaves of the radish. These plants could breed with each other but not with either the cabbage or radish ancestors, so Karpechenko had produced a new species......right? Not in the evolutionary sense. No new DNA had been produced. The mechanism was by the spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number in somatic cells that went on to form gametes (by meiosis). Thus these contained 18 chromosomes — a complete set of both cabbage (n=9) and radish (n=9) chromosomes. Polyploidy



Nuanced?

Hardly the kind of thing a dolt like you could understand.

One needs a background and understanding of the biology on a more technical level in order to see that this is not proof of Darwin's theory. Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. This was common for thousands of years before Darwin. In order for Darwin's theory to be correct, the changes must result in new structures that did not exist before.


Evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, explains that polyploidy "does not confer major new morphological characteristics... [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera" or higher levels in the biological hierarchy."
Douglas J. Futuyma, "Evolution," p. 398.

It is simply a 'stutter' during meiosis, copied during mitosis.


Scientist after scientist agrees, as I provided in the earlier post, that Darwin's theory is without proof.

As is true of every issue beyond being certain that your socks match, this is but one more subject beyond your ken.





It's amusing to picture you, with an IQ way off to the left on the bell curve, trying to understand the discussion.

Get back to the 24-hour Cartoon Network.

 

[initforme]

So what has been established is darwins theory has no proof and intelligent design has no proof. Where my kids went to school both theories were taught. Decisions left up to the kids. Since there is no so called PROOF of either I see this as fair. So the INDOCTRINATION rhetoric that some use is thrown out the window unless having the kids say the pledge of allegiance everyday(which they did) is a form of indoctrination.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what has been established is darwins theory has no proof and intelligent design has no proof. Where my kids went to school both theories were taught. Decisions left up to the kids. Since there is no so called PROOF of either I see this as fair. So the INDOCTRINATION rhetoric that some use is thrown out the window unless having the kids say the pledge of allegiance everyday(which they did) is a form of indoctrination.

And, if Darwin's theory is without proof.....why is it so prominently taught in science classes......?



1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


2. . What did Marx see in Darwin that he found entrancing?

The ability to claim that science 'demolished' the idea of a purpose in nature....an idea which is echoed in first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ and, in fact, consistent with many religions.

a. In the words of twentieth century evolutionist Ernst Mayr, Darwin “replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. … Darwin’s explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary.” Charles Darwin: Reluctant Revolutionary


b. Atheism. This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.
The Schwarz Report | Essays




Darwin, Marx, atheism, secularism......indivisible.

 

[initforme]

1) So in your eyes, should be eliminate Darwins theory and teach only intelligent design?

2). Interesting question. Is mandatory pledge of allegiance a form on indoctrination? My kids said it every day of their public school lives, yet I've wondered WHY? How bout once a week? Is this a school trying to influence MY children?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1) So in your eyes, should be eliminate Darwins theory and teach only intelligent design?

2). Interesting question. Is mandatory pledge of allegiance a form on indoctrination? My kids said it every day of their public school lives, yet I've wondered WHY? How bout once a week? Is this a school trying to influence MY children?

1. Teach the weaknesses along with the strengths of the theory.


2. The pledge is the kind of indoctrination I'd favor.

"Earlier American presidents, Republicans and Democrats alike, agreed on two basic goals: teach the newcomers English and make them Americans. The clear aim was to strengthen our national identity--to reinforce the unum in e pluribus unum--by assimilating the new arrivals into American civilization."
Anti-Americanization - Society and Culture - AEI

 

[NYcarbineer]

"No, you're claiming that Darwin's theory has no evidence to back it up.

That makes you either a fool or a liar, or to be more precise,..."


No....it clarifies the facts.....that, as usual, you are clueless.



Although it is daunting to have to deal with morons like you on a daily basis....

...there is the satisfaction of showing how very little you know.




1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.

Thus, one species must evolve into a more complex one.....that is Darwin's theory.



2.. So, "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."
speciation definition
The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."
speciation (biology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica




Now, observe how easily you are proven to be a moron and/or a liar.


3. " 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 this:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.”
(Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)


And this:

In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.




So....once again....egg on your face.


In the future, you should avoid embarrassing yourself by learning about a subject before you voice an opinion.....

....of course, that would require an ability not in evidence.

Well, you can start by disproving these observed incidents of speciation:

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Or you can concede you don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I am speaking about, and to whom it is addressed: an idiot.

Understanding the misuse of 'speciation' in your link is far beyond your limited talents.

Such speciation is not the kind of speciation that would fit Darwin's mechanism for evolution.

An example:
In the 1920's, Russian biologist Georgii Karpechenko crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. They had the roots of the cabbage and the leaves of the radish. These plants could breed with each other but not with either the cabbage or radish ancestors, so Karpechenko had produced a new species......right? Not in the evolutionary sense. No new DNA had been produced. The mechanism was by the spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number in somatic cells that went on to form gametes (by meiosis). Thus these contained 18 chromosomes — a complete set of both cabbage (n=9) and radish (n=9) chromosomes. Polyploidy



Nuanced?

Hardly the kind of thing a dolt like you could understand.

One needs a background and understanding of the biology on a more technical level in order to see that this is not proof of Darwin's theory. Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. This was common for thousands of years before Darwin. In order for Darwin's theory to be correct, the changes must result in new structures that did not exist before.


Evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, explains that polyploidy "does not confer major new morphological characteristics... [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera" or higher levels in the biological hierarchy."
Douglas J. Futuyma, "Evolution," p. 398.

It is simply a 'stutter' during meiosis, copied during mitosis.


Scientist after scientist agrees, as I provided in the earlier post, that Darwin's theory is without proof.

As is true of every issue beyond being certain that your socks match, this is but one more subject beyond your ken.





It's amusing to picture you, with an IQ way off to the left on the bell curve, trying to understand the discussion.

Get back to the 24-hour Cartoon Network.

My IQ is 138 just so you don't make that miscalculation again.

You claimed there were no observed examples of speciation.

I gave you observed examples of speciation.

That proves you wrong, unless you prove, example by example, that none of them are such examples.

That's how argumentation works.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what has been established is darwins theory has no proof and intelligent design has no proof. Where my kids went to school both theories were taught. Decisions left up to the kids. Since there is no so called PROOF of either I see this as fair. So the INDOCTRINATION rhetoric that some use is thrown out the window unless having the kids say the pledge of allegiance everyday(which they did) is a form of indoctrination.

Intelligent design is a pseudo-science, not a scientific theory.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, you can start by disproving these observed incidents of speciation:

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Or you can concede you don't know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I am speaking about, and to whom it is addressed: an idiot.

Understanding the misuse of 'speciation' in your link is far beyond your limited talents.

Such speciation is not the kind of speciation that would fit Darwin's mechanism for evolution.

An example:
In the 1920's, Russian biologist Georgii Karpechenko crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. They had the roots of the cabbage and the leaves of the radish. These plants could breed with each other but not with either the cabbage or radish ancestors, so Karpechenko had produced a new species......right? Not in the evolutionary sense. No new DNA had been produced. The mechanism was by the spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number in somatic cells that went on to form gametes (by meiosis). Thus these contained 18 chromosomes — a complete set of both cabbage (n=9) and radish (n=9) chromosomes. Polyploidy



Nuanced?

Hardly the kind of thing a dolt like you could understand.

One needs a background and understanding of the biology on a more technical level in order to see that this is not proof of Darwin's theory. Crossing different types of vegetables is common and is done with fruit, dogs, beetles, worms, bacteria, and cats. This was common for thousands of years before Darwin. In order for Darwin's theory to be correct, the changes must result in new structures that did not exist before.


Evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, explains that polyploidy "does not confer major new morphological characteristics... [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera" or higher levels in the biological hierarchy."
Douglas J. Futuyma, "Evolution," p. 398.

It is simply a 'stutter' during meiosis, copied during mitosis.


Scientist after scientist agrees, as I provided in the earlier post, that Darwin's theory is without proof.

As is true of every issue beyond being certain that your socks match, this is but one more subject beyond your ken.





It's amusing to picture you, with an IQ way off to the left on the bell curve, trying to understand the discussion.

Get back to the 24-hour Cartoon Network.

My IQ is 138 just so you don't make that miscalculation again.

You claimed there were no observed examples of speciation.

I gave you observed examples of speciation.

That proves you wrong, unless you prove, example by example, that none of them are such examples.

That's how argumentation works.

1. "My IQ is 138 just so you don't make that miscalculation again."

Put the decimal point back where it belongs.

It is eminently clear that you are a moron.




2. Evidence of your opacity here: "You claimed there were no observed examples of speciation."

No, I explained as simply as possible that you didn't understand the requirement for 'speciation' that would support Darwin's theory.

Review my post....I stated, presciently, that the nuance would be well beyond your abilities.
As you so proved.




3. There is an ancient saying that has moment, here, in our relationship. It applies to my teaching you:
"A fool, though in the company of the wise, understands nothing of the doctrine being discussed, as a spoon tastes not the flavor of the soup."





And, in keeping with the subject under discussion....
How does it feel being an evolutionary cul de sac?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what has been established is darwins theory has no proof and intelligent design has no proof. Where my kids went to school both theories were taught. Decisions left up to the kids. Since there is no so called PROOF of either I see this as fair. So the INDOCTRINATION rhetoric that some use is thrown out the window unless having the kids say the pledge of allegiance everyday(which they did) is a form of indoctrination.

Intelligent design is a pseudo-science, not a scientific theory.

The same applies to Darwin's theory.

 

[Whereisup]

1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.

Thus, one species must evolve into a more complex one.....that is Darwin's theory.

2.. So, "Speciation" is the cornerstone of Darwinian evolution. The official definition is "A process whereby over time one species evolves into a different species (anagenesis) or whereby one species diverges to become two or more species (cladogenesis)."
speciation definition
The Encyclopedia Britannica simplifies it a little with "the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."
speciation (biology) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

Now, observe how easily you are proven to be a moron and/or a liar.

3. " 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 this:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.”
(Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

And this:
In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,” and “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.” Before Darwin, the consensus was that species can vary only within certain limits; indeed, centuries of artificial selection had seemingly demonstrated such limits experimentally. “Darwin had to show that the limits could be broken,” wrote Thomson, “so do we.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun,” American Scientist 85 (1997): 516-518.
So....once again....egg on your face.
In the future, you should avoid embarrassing yourself by learning about a subject before you voice an opinion.....
....of course, that would require an ability not in evidence.

Many ordinary Fundamentalist Christians and ministers seem to be sincere Christians who take what leaders higher than them in the church say as absolute truth that they shouldn't question.

However, the leaders who are promoting the idea that Darwin's theory has no proof must not believe in God, because they wouldn't dare be dishonest if they did believe in God. Rather, for them, the church must merely be a career they make money in.

In reality, there are many sequences in the fossil record which show transitions from species to species. Since fossils are rare, that record isn't complete, but it does show that Darwin's theory has real validity, not just face validity.

However, there is a newer research technique that is better, and with it, Darwin's theory still holds up. Scientists are now comparing DNA of species, and even find the rate at which DNA mutates in a species. The DNA patterns show a history of species change with much precision.

The evidence for the Theory of Evolution is overwhelming.

Jim