The Biology Term For History

[PoliticalChic]

According to Darwin, who was kind enough to draw it out as his ‘Tree of Life’…


Darwin drew of the Tree of Life, in his notebooks.

Not forgetting also, that: the `Tree of Life’ diagram in On The Origin of Species (1859) is the only diagram or picture in the whole book…(!)


Darwin’s `tree of life’ diagram from the Origin (1859) Ch 4, p 56
StoryAlity#139 – The Evolution of Darwin’s Tree of Life diagram



Here's where we blow Darwinism out of the water!

9. Darwin: descent from a common ancestor, followed by millions of accidental random modifications, showing the biological trials and errors in the fossil record, until, finally, more ‘evolved’ creatures. So, in Darwin’s drawing…the simple common ancestors at the bottom of his tree diagram, lots of new and more complex organisms at the top.



But that’s not the story of the fossil record. In many sites both simple and complex are found in the same historical timeframe…..and in many sites….the more complex, advanced, and ‘evolved’ appear earlier than their supposed ‘common ancestors.’ Differences that Darwin said would appear last….appear first.



Clearly, definitively, dispositively…..Darwin was wrong.

No one has an explanation for this.
Couldn’t schools simply say that? Why not?

A series of random modifications did not produce the advanced forms. Something else did. I can’t prove what the actual mechanism of evolution is, but I can say it isn’t what Darwin claimed.



The only thing government school grads can do is resort to the usual: deny the truth…”is not, issssss noootttt!!!”

 

[Hollie]

According to Darwin, who was kind enough to draw it out as his ‘Tree of Life’…


Darwin drew of the Tree of Life, in his notebooks.

Not forgetting also, that: the `Tree of Life’ diagram in On The Origin of Species (1859) is the only diagram or picture in the whole book…(!)


Darwin’s `tree of life’ diagram from the Origin (1859) Ch 4, p 56
StoryAlity#139 – The Evolution of Darwin’s Tree of Life diagram



Here's where we blow Darwinism out of the water!

9. Darwin: descent from a common ancestor, followed by millions of accidental random modifications, showing the biological trials and errors in the fossil record, until, finally, more ‘evolved’ creatures. So, in Darwin’s drawing…the simple common ancestors at the bottom of his tree diagram, lots of new and more complex organisms at the top.



But that’s not the story of the fossil record. In many sites both simple and complex are found in the same historical timeframe…..and in many sites….the more complex, advanced, and ‘evolved’ appear earlier than their supposed ‘common ancestors.’ Differences that Darwin said would appear last….appear first.



Clearly, definitively, dispositively…..Darwin was wrong.

No one has an explanation for this.
Couldn’t schools simply say that? Why not?

A series of random modifications did not produce the advanced forms. Something else did. I can’t prove what the actual mechanism of evolution is, but I can say it isn’t what Darwin claimed.



The only thing government school grads can do is resort to the usual: deny the truth…”is not, issssss noootttt!!!”

10. Clearly, you don’t understand what you cut and paste.

11. Home skoolurs are stunted both intellectually and emotionally.

12. What the ID’iot creationists don’t understand is that the forces that act upon biological organisms are not random. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer.

13. This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness.

14. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable.

15. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever.

16. As natural selection continues to act on the genes (both old and new) populations can eventually reach a point where all of the old genes for a certain trait have been replaced by the newly evolved genes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Darwinism is certainly elegant and eloquent, and would be an awesome weapon for Leftists/Marxists/Liberals who have a hatred for religion…..

….but the facts prove it utterly false. Useful…..but false.



So, the disreputable…Marxists, Leftists of all stripes….use their control of the schools and the media to defend and support Darwin by simply lying.



Real scientists, those untouched by an attachment to Marxism, give a more objective observation, one that admits that we don’t know how and why there are so very many life forms.

Harry Whittington the renowned paleontologist whose work is critical to documenting the Cambrian explosion said in 1985 “I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time and come down at the base to a single kind of animal…animals may have originated more than once, in different places and at different times.” https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master-public-policy/content/capstones/origins.pdf



And remember, Charles Darwin was not one of the current of liars, spinning tales to support a failed doctrine:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


Why is it essential to claim that Darwin was correct, when the evidence is quite the opposite?

And why the necessity of lying, rather than admitting that no one had a valid explanation for the diversity on earth?

 

[Hollie]

10. Darwinism is certainly elegant and eloquent, and would be an awesome weapon for Leftists/Marxists/Liberals who have a hatred for religion…..

….but the facts prove it utterly false. Useful…..but false.



So, the disreputable…Marxists, Leftists of all stripes….use their control of the schools and the media to defend and support Darwin by simply lying.



Real scientists, those untouched by an attachment to Marxism, give a more objective observation, one that admits that we don’t know how and why there are so very many life forms.

Harry Whittington the renowned paleontologist whose work is critical to documenting the Cambrian explosion said in 1985 “I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time and come down at the base to a single kind of animal…animals may have originated more than once, in different places and at different times.” https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master-public-policy/content/capstones/origins.pdf



And remember, Charles Darwin was not one of the current of liars, spinning tales to support a failed doctrine:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


Why is it essential to claim that Darwin was correct, when the evidence is quite the opposite?

And why the necessity of lying, rather than admitting that no one had a valid explanation for the diversity on earth?

1. Gee whiz. You're still posting that edited, parsed, ''quote'' even though you know it's a fraud.

2. That might suggest you're a dishonest fraud, right?

3. Quote #2.4

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.htmlv

[Re: The fossil record is incorrectly presented as incontrovertible evidence of the validity of evolutionary theory]

"The case at present (problems presented by the fossil record) must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." - The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Penguins Books, New York, Edition 6, p. 310.

Representative quote miners: The Fossil Record: Proof of Special Creation and The Creation Explanation: The Primeval World -- Fossils, Geology & Earth History: What Do the Fossils Say?

The more complete context is:

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Several eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their head, were until recently convinced that we beheld in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the first dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and E. Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy. Not very long ago M. Barrande added another and lower stage, abounding with new and peculiar species, beneath the then known Silurian system; and now, still lower down in the Lower Cambrian formation, Mr. Hicks has found in South Wales beds rich in trilobites, and containing various molluscs and annelids. The presence of phosphatic nodules and bituminous matter, even in some of the lowest azoic rocks, probably indicates life at these periods; and the existence of the Eozoon in the Laurentian formation of Canada is generally admitted. There are three great series of strata beneath the Silurian system in Canada, in the lowest of which the Eozoon is found. Sir W. Logan states that their "united thickness may possibly far surpass that of all the succeeding rocks, from the base of the palæozoic series to the present time. We are thus carried back to a period so remote that the appearance of the so-called primordial fauna (of Barrande) may by some be considered as a comparatively modern event." The Eozoon belongs to the most lowly organised of all classes of animals, but is highly organised for its class; it existed in count less numbers, and, as Dr. Dawson has remarked, certainly preyed on other minute organic beings, which must have lived in great numbers. Thus the words, which I wrote in 1859, about the existence of living beings long before the Cambrian period, and which are almost the same with those since used by Sir W. Logan, have proved true. Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great. It does not seem probable that the most ancient beds have been quite worn away by denudation, or that their fossils have been wholly obliterated by metamorphic action, for if this had been the case we should have found only small remnants of the formations next succeeding them in age, and these would always have existed in a partially metamorphosed condition. But the descriptions which we possess of the Silurian deposits over immense territories in Russia and in North America, do not support the view, that the older a formation is, the more invariably it has suffered extreme denudation and metamorphism.

The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.To show that it may hereafter receive some explanation, I will give the following hypothesis. From the nature of the organic remains which do not appear to have inhabited profound depths, in the several formations of Europe and of the United States; and from the amount of sediment, miles in thickness, of which the formations are composed, we may infer that from first to last large islands or tracts of land, whence the sediment was derived, occurred in the neighbourhood of the now existing continents of Europe and North America. The same view has since been maintained by Agassiz and others. But we do not know what was the state of things in the intervals between the several successive formations; whether Europe and the United States during these intervals existed as dry land, or as a submarine surface near land, on which sediment was not deposited, or as the bed on an open and unfathomable sea. - Origin of Species, 6th Ed. John Murray, 1872, Chapter 10, pp. 286-288.

Darwin is concerned about the lack of fossils before the Cambrian, and seeks to explain it in terms of the wearing away of the earlier strata. He notes here (sixth edition, 1872) that he had said in 1859 (first edition) that fossils would be found in earlier strata, and they eventually were. However, Darwin was probably mislead about the Eozoon formations, as they are not currently considered a real fossil but a metamorphic feature formed from the segregation of minerals in marble through the influence of great heat and pressure.

Tectonic subduction, something that Darwin could not known of, has destroyed some of the relevant material but mostly he was right. The older the sediment, the greater the chance that it has either eroded away or been metamorphosed to an extent that fossils are destroyed. Even so, we have multicellular fossils now back to the Ediacaran (circa 580 million years before the present) and single cell fossils arguably back to 3.75 billion years. The valid argument no longer has any purchase, and Darwin has been vindicated.

Citing it out of the specific context suggests Darwin thought there were a lot of things he could not explain using evolution, and that he knew it was false. This is extraordinarily bad quote mining.

4. Fundie zealots are quite the self-hating, manipulative type.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. The term evolution correctly refers to the history of life on earth. It does not mean Darwinism.



Contrary to Darwin’s theory, life on earth cannot be traced back to a common ancestor.

a. The fossil record does not support Darwin’s simple to complex formulation. In fact, it proves quite the opposite.

b. An understanding of alterations that naturally occur in DNA does not lend credence to the idea that changes, mutations, could be the mechanism for speciation.

c. No change from one species to a distinctly different species has ever been observed in either nature nor in the laboratory.

d. The beatification of Darwin and the claim that he nailed it, is simply a political view, and not a scientific one.




The source of and reason for the falsification is revealed in the words of scientists such as Lewontin:

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”


"....tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

Darwinism is one of those 'just-so stories.'

 

[alang1216]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

We already had this conversation and you even admitted in one post that your argument sounded stupid.
Remember that one about how a one in a billion chance turned immediately into a one in one chance?
Mathematically, evolution fails miserably.

I don't recall. You sure I didn't say that your argument sounded stupid?

It is you who fails math since evolution is not a one in a billion chance, it is inevitable.

 

[alang1216]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

We already had this conversation and you even admitted in one post that your argument sounded stupid.
Remember that one about how a one in a billion chance turned immediately into a one in one chance?
Mathematically, evolution fails miserably.

I don't recall. You sure I didn't say that your argument sounded stupid?

It is you who fails math since evolution is not a one in a billion chance, it is inevitable.

I'm impressed.....no matter how stupid your last post was, you manage to produce one rife with even more stupidity in the next one.

 

[Indeependent]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

We already had this conversation and you even admitted in one post that your argument sounded stupid.
Remember that one about how a one in a billion chance turned immediately into a one in one chance?
Mathematically, evolution fails miserably.

I don't recall. You sure I didn't say that your argument sounded stupid?

It is you who fails math since evolution is not a one in a billion chance, it is inevitable.

I love selective memory!
You stated the odds of evolution in a species that required a mate and I asked what are the odds that those two parents will produce two in a billion+ anomalies that can reproduce and you admitted that what you posted sounded stupid.
I'm not saying you're stupid, it's just that nobody who's rooting for evolution in such a case will admit that it's impossible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.
Raise your paw.

 

[alang1216]

10. Darwinism is certainly elegant and eloquent, and would be an awesome weapon for Leftists/Marxists/Liberals who have a hatred for religion…..

….but the facts prove it utterly false. Useful…..but false.



So, the disreputable…Marxists, Leftists of all stripes….use their control of the schools and the media to defend and support Darwin by simply lying.



Real scientists, those untouched by an attachment to Marxism, give a more objective observation, one that admits that we don’t know how and why there are so very many life forms.

Harry Whittington the renowned paleontologist whose work is critical to documenting the Cambrian explosion said in 1985 “I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time and come down at the base to a single kind of animal…animals may have originated more than once, in different places and at different times.” https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master-public-policy/content/capstones/origins.pdf



And remember, Charles Darwin was not one of the current of liars, spinning tales to support a failed doctrine:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


Why is it essential to claim that Darwin was correct, when the evidence is quite the opposite?

And why the necessity of lying, rather than admitting that no one had a valid explanation for the diversity on earth?

Actually Darwin was wrong about many things and as he got older he tended to backtrack on the things he got right. His fundamental thesis, that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. If you want to be taken seriously in this matter (you are not) you'd engage with some more recent science and stop cherry-picking critical quotes from scientists that actually believe in evolution.

 

[alang1216]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

We already had this conversation and you even admitted in one post that your argument sounded stupid.
Remember that one about how a one in a billion chance turned immediately into a one in one chance?
Mathematically, evolution fails miserably.

I don't recall. You sure I didn't say that your argument sounded stupid?

It is you who fails math since evolution is not a one in a billion chance, it is inevitable.

I love selective memory!
You stated the odds of evolution in a species that required a mate and I asked what are the odds that those two parents will produce two in a billion+ anomalies that can reproduce and you admitted that what you posted sounded stupid.
I'm not saying you're stupid, it's just that nobody who's rooting for evolution in such a case will admit that it's impossible.

I really have no clue what your point is. If it is that evolution by random chance is impossible, I agree. If you think that is how evolution operates, you are very much mistaken. I'm saying this now and I'm certain it is what I've said in the past.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Darwinism is certainly elegant and eloquent, and would be an awesome weapon for Leftists/Marxists/Liberals who have a hatred for religion…..

….but the facts prove it utterly false. Useful…..but false.



So, the disreputable…Marxists, Leftists of all stripes….use their control of the schools and the media to defend and support Darwin by simply lying.



Real scientists, those untouched by an attachment to Marxism, give a more objective observation, one that admits that we don’t know how and why there are so very many life forms.

Harry Whittington the renowned paleontologist whose work is critical to documenting the Cambrian explosion said in 1985 “I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time and come down at the base to a single kind of animal…animals may have originated more than once, in different places and at different times.” https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master-public-policy/content/capstones/origins.pdf



And remember, Charles Darwin was not one of the current of liars, spinning tales to support a failed doctrine:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


Why is it essential to claim that Darwin was correct, when the evidence is quite the opposite?

And why the necessity of lying, rather than admitting that no one had a valid explanation for the diversity on earth?

Actually Darwin was wrong about many things and as he got older he tended to backtrack on the things he got right. His fundamental thesis, that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. If you want to be taken seriously in this matter (you are not) you'd engage with some more recent science and stop cherry-picking critical quotes from scientists that actually believe in evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Darwinism is certainly elegant and eloquent, and would be an awesome weapon for Leftists/Marxists/Liberals who have a hatred for religion…..

….but the facts prove it utterly false. Useful…..but false.



So, the disreputable…Marxists, Leftists of all stripes….use their control of the schools and the media to defend and support Darwin by simply lying.



Real scientists, those untouched by an attachment to Marxism, give a more objective observation, one that admits that we don’t know how and why there are so very many life forms.

Harry Whittington the renowned paleontologist whose work is critical to documenting the Cambrian explosion said in 1985 “I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time and come down at the base to a single kind of animal…animals may have originated more than once, in different places and at different times.” https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master-public-policy/content/capstones/origins.pdf



And remember, Charles Darwin was not one of the current of liars, spinning tales to support a failed doctrine:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


Why is it essential to claim that Darwin was correct, when the evidence is quite the opposite?

And why the necessity of lying, rather than admitting that no one had a valid explanation for the diversity on earth?

Actually Darwin was wrong about many things and as he got older he tended to backtrack on the things he got right. His fundamental thesis, that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. If you want to be taken seriously in this matter (you are not) you'd engage with some more recent science and stop cherry-picking critical quotes from scientists that actually believe in evolution.

"...that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. "


Any proof?

No?

Any proof that you ever had a cerebrum????

Ever?????

 

[Indeependent]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

We already had this conversation and you even admitted in one post that your argument sounded stupid.
Remember that one about how a one in a billion chance turned immediately into a one in one chance?
Mathematically, evolution fails miserably.

I don't recall. You sure I didn't say that your argument sounded stupid?

It is you who fails math since evolution is not a one in a billion chance, it is inevitable.

I love selective memory!
You stated the odds of evolution in a species that required a mate and I asked what are the odds that those two parents will produce two in a billion+ anomalies that can reproduce and you admitted that what you posted sounded stupid.
I'm not saying you're stupid, it's just that nobody who's rooting for evolution in such a case will admit that it's impossible.

I really have no clue what your point is. If it is that evolution by random chance is impossible, I agree. If you think that is how evolution operates, you are very much mistaken. I'm saying this now and I'm certain it is what I've said in the past.

evolution by random chance is impossible
I'm glad you agree with reality

If you think that is how evolution operates
That is how evolution "operates"

Maybe birds really did develop wings over 10 million years!

 

[alang1216]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Darwinism is certainly elegant and eloquent, and would be an awesome weapon for Leftists/Marxists/Liberals who have a hatred for religion…..

….but the facts prove it utterly false. Useful…..but false.



So, the disreputable…Marxists, Leftists of all stripes….use their control of the schools and the media to defend and support Darwin by simply lying.



Real scientists, those untouched by an attachment to Marxism, give a more objective observation, one that admits that we don’t know how and why there are so very many life forms.

Harry Whittington the renowned paleontologist whose work is critical to documenting the Cambrian explosion said in 1985 “I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time and come down at the base to a single kind of animal…animals may have originated more than once, in different places and at different times.” https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master-public-policy/content/capstones/origins.pdf



And remember, Charles Darwin was not one of the current of liars, spinning tales to support a failed doctrine:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


Why is it essential to claim that Darwin was correct, when the evidence is quite the opposite?

And why the necessity of lying, rather than admitting that no one had a valid explanation for the diversity on earth?

Actually Darwin was wrong about many things and as he got older he tended to backtrack on the things he got right. His fundamental thesis, that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. If you want to be taken seriously in this matter (you are not) you'd engage with some more recent science and stop cherry-picking critical quotes from scientists that actually believe in evolution.

"His fundamental thesis, that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics ..."



Actually I showed that the fossil evidence disproved that.....and you proved you're incapable of learning.



According to Darwin, who was kind enough to draw it out as his ‘Tree of Life’…


Darwin drew of the Tree of Life, in his notebooks.

Not forgetting also, that: the `Tree of Life’ diagram in On The Origin of Species (1859) is the only diagram or picture in the whole book…(!)


Darwin’s `tree of life’ diagram from the Origin (1859) Ch 4, p 56
StoryAlity#139 – The Evolution of Darwin’s Tree of Life diagram



Here's where we blow Darwinism out of the water!

9. Darwin: descent from a common ancestor, followed by millions of accidental random modifications, showing the biological trials and errors in the fossil record, until, finally, more ‘evolved’ creatures. So, in Darwin’s drawing…the simple common ancestors at the bottom of his tree diagram, lots of new and more complex organisms at the top.



But that’s not the story of the fossil record. In many sites both simple and complex are found in the same historical timeframe…..and in many sites….the more complex, advanced, and ‘evolved’ appear earlier than their supposed ‘common ancestors.’ Differences that Darwin said would appear last….appear first.



Clearly, definitively, dispositively…..Darwin was wrong.

No one has an explanation for this.
Couldn’t schools simply say that? Why not?

A series of random modifications did not produce the advanced forms. Something else did. I can’t prove what the actual mechanism of evolution is, but I can say it isn’t what Darwin claimed.



The only thing government school grads can do is resort to the usual: deny the truth…”is not, issssss noootttt!!!”

 

[alang1216]

10. Darwinism is certainly elegant and eloquent, and would be an awesome weapon for Leftists/Marxists/Liberals who have a hatred for religion…..

….but the facts prove it utterly false. Useful…..but false.



So, the disreputable…Marxists, Leftists of all stripes….use their control of the schools and the media to defend and support Darwin by simply lying.



Real scientists, those untouched by an attachment to Marxism, give a more objective observation, one that admits that we don’t know how and why there are so very many life forms.

Harry Whittington the renowned paleontologist whose work is critical to documenting the Cambrian explosion said in 1985 “I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time and come down at the base to a single kind of animal…animals may have originated more than once, in different places and at different times.” https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master-public-policy/content/capstones/origins.pdf



And remember, Charles Darwin was not one of the current of liars, spinning tales to support a failed doctrine:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


Why is it essential to claim that Darwin was correct, when the evidence is quite the opposite?

And why the necessity of lying, rather than admitting that no one had a valid explanation for the diversity on earth?

Actually Darwin was wrong about many things and as he got older he tended to backtrack on the things he got right. His fundamental thesis, that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. If you want to be taken seriously in this matter (you are not) you'd engage with some more recent science and stop cherry-picking critical quotes from scientists that actually believe in evolution.

"...that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. "


Any proof?

No?

Any proof that you ever had a cerebrum????

Ever?????

Someday you'll learn the difference between proof and evidence.

 

[alang1216]

10. Darwinism is certainly elegant and eloquent, and would be an awesome weapon for Leftists/Marxists/Liberals who have a hatred for religion…..

….but the facts prove it utterly false. Useful…..but false.



So, the disreputable…Marxists, Leftists of all stripes….use their control of the schools and the media to defend and support Darwin by simply lying.



Real scientists, those untouched by an attachment to Marxism, give a more objective observation, one that admits that we don’t know how and why there are so very many life forms.

Harry Whittington the renowned paleontologist whose work is critical to documenting the Cambrian explosion said in 1985 “I look skeptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time and come down at the base to a single kind of animal…animals may have originated more than once, in different places and at different times.” https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master-public-policy/content/capstones/origins.pdf



And remember, Charles Darwin was not one of the current of liars, spinning tales to support a failed doctrine:

" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained. "
Charles Darwin X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics


Why is it essential to claim that Darwin was correct, when the evidence is quite the opposite?

And why the necessity of lying, rather than admitting that no one had a valid explanation for the diversity on earth?

Actually Darwin was wrong about many things and as he got older he tended to backtrack on the things he got right. His fundamental thesis, that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. If you want to be taken seriously in this matter (you are not) you'd engage with some more recent science and stop cherry-picking critical quotes from scientists that actually believe in evolution.

"His fundamental thesis, that all life evolved from a common ancestor, has survived its critics ..."



Actually I showed that the fossil evidence disproved that.....and you proved you're incapable of learning.



According to Darwin, who was kind enough to draw it out as his ‘Tree of Life’…


Darwin drew of the Tree of Life, in his notebooks.

Not forgetting also, that: the `Tree of Life’ diagram in On The Origin of Species (1859) is the only diagram or picture in the whole book…(!)


Darwin’s `tree of life’ diagram from the Origin (1859) Ch 4, p 56
StoryAlity#139 – The Evolution of Darwin’s Tree of Life diagram



Here's where we blow Darwinism out of the water!

9. Darwin: descent from a common ancestor, followed by millions of accidental random modifications, showing the biological trials and errors in the fossil record, until, finally, more ‘evolved’ creatures. So, in Darwin’s drawing…the simple common ancestors at the bottom of his tree diagram, lots of new and more complex organisms at the top.



But that’s not the story of the fossil record. In many sites both simple and complex are found in the same historical timeframe…..and in many sites….the more complex, advanced, and ‘evolved’ appear earlier than their supposed ‘common ancestors.’ Differences that Darwin said would appear last….appear first.



Clearly, definitively, dispositively…..Darwin was wrong.

No one has an explanation for this.
Couldn’t schools simply say that? Why not?

A series of random modifications did not produce the advanced forms. Something else did. I can’t prove what the actual mechanism of evolution is, but I can say it isn’t what Darwin claimed.



The only thing government school grads can do is resort to the usual: deny the truth…”is not, issssss noootttt!!!”

Maybe you could find a Tree of Life diagram from this millenia?

 

[Indeependent]

Disappointing at best.

The question you have steadfastly refused to answer is where do new species come from? Seems like there are only a few options:

1. supernatural creation
2. evolution
3. aliens intervention
4. we're all in the Matrix

You obviously don't have an answer or you'd have shared it with us. Why you insist on cutting and pasting your ignorance is beyond me.

No one knows.

Darwin gave his view.....I proved it wrong.

You're not very bright, are you.

Interesting, you know how it didn't happen but not how it did happen. You disappoint me again.

Sooo.....if mutations don't fit Darwin.......what does?
Or, can we simply admit that at this time, no one can explain the vast array of life forms.

What does? Natural selection operating on the natural variation within a population. Not all my children are the same height as I am.

Change occurs….I hesitate to call it ‘evolution’ because the uninformed tend to consider that agreement with Darwin.

How does change occur?

Who says change occurs?
I, for one, will not be around a billion years from now to see a dog become a human.
I have, though, seen humans become dogs.

The fossil record.

Did Darwin, the guy you worship, provide the 'how it happened'???

Yes he did. That was in fact his supreme accomplishment and you may have heard of it: natural selection.

This is the third time I'm correcting the same error, you moron.

Breeders and farmers practiced 'natural selection' from time immemorial.

And never has the modification, the alteration, produced a new species.



Animal husbandry, farming domestication, is based on the sort of random modifications that Darwin was getting at. No one doubts it. It was practiced well before Darwin. But while these folks knew that these modifications are almost always harmful, and deadly, the changes are always within limit of the species.

Darwin said they accumulate until a new species is the result. This has never happened. And that’s where Darwinism deviates into a political view, and not a scientific one.


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.



And….

“Breeders have been using artificial selection to produce descent with modification for centuries—within existing species. Natural selection has also been observed to do the same in the wild—but again, only within existing species.”
Jonathan Wells





Thus, anyone who claims that Darwinian Evolution is a ‘fact, proven,’ is proof of the government school political persuasion, and knows nothing of science.
Raise your paw.

You mean this is the 3rd time you reposted the same junk?

Ironically, yesterday I was listening to a podcast by a friend of my daughter. She is a science writer and she said there are species of microbes and insects that are found no where in nature except the homes of people. Seems evolution is happening whether you believe in it or not.

Oo! A Science writer!
How about the fact that many species have limited habitats depending on humidity and other factors?
Is that like COVID?