It is well known that to decrease a population, all you have to do is make it richer. That is why the population growth of the US, Europe, and Japan are negative numbers. Percentage-wise, I wonder if more people are starving today than they were 200 years ago?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Miserable End of Darwinian Evolution
- Thread starter ChemEngineer
- Start date
Or scientists:Yeah thats it .......in the beginning was the goop...where it came from no one knows it just was acording to the fairytale and then the goop exploded and life sprang from nothing......great story....for idiots
Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on Earth
Manonthestreet
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2014
- 34,693
- 22,941
- 1,945
Yeah and where did that come from.....stuff just doesnt materialize
Plogisten was accepted for less time than evolution has been accepted and certainly was not as vigorously tested.Plogisten was also an "accepted fact." Obviously you know little about science and its propensity for error. The silly saw that it has "a self-correcting mechanism" is absurd. Every animal and plant also has "a self-correcting mechanism," called "trial and error."
Roots that do not find water die and new ones are sent in different directions, "scientifically" to mock the nonsense.
There are few biologist or geologists that don't believe in descent from a common ancestor. The details may be debated but that essential fact is widely accepted.There are hundreds of scientists who have signed the Dissent From Darwinism, just as there are hundreds of others who have signed the document, "No Climate Change Emergency." Hundreds of scientists cannot manufacture reasons to dissent from hundred fifty year old tautologies and censorship and stubbornness born of pride.
Actually it does. Many inorganic compounds, such as some clays, can self-replicate.Yeah and where did that come from.....stuff just doesnt materialize
Manonthestreet
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2014
- 34,693
- 22,941
- 1,945
and where did that come from....just appeared ehActually it does. Many inorganic compounds, such as some clays, can self-replicate.
ChemEngineer
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2019
- 6,078
- 5,875
- 1,940
- Thread starter
- #47
MOS, don't pander him by responding to his inane comments. He simply parrots "the line" he has heard from scientists who subscribe to Darwin's tautology, which has been contradicted and upended many different ways. There are books, papers, videos, and common sense explaining why it is bogus. Lefties believe what they want to believe, not what is reality.and where did that come from....just appeared eh
I'm honored to be back. However temporary it turns out to be.I had to click the link to take you off IGNORE, which disgrace you previously earned for other inane posts.
I guarantee that neither titin nor any other protein was synthesized "from chaos." I sure life started with a much simpler architecture that was probably no more complex than a self-replicating, inorganic molecule. Once it could do that the laws of evolution took over and in no time there was titin. No time being 1-2 billion years.If you are impressed with the "order" of crystallization, you have your chaotic mind to thank. Biochemists have written books to explain how exceedingly difficult it is to synthesize proteins, which lack the "order" of crystals but are brilliantly designed and essential to life.
Explain how the first molecules of titin were synthesized "from chaos."
Titin has 38,138 amino acid residues in a single molecule, all of the residues levorotary, not dextrorotary, and all peptide bonded together. Take it one step at a time for us for titin, then try the next protein of your choice from among the 20,000 others in human bodies.
You picked out quotes from people like Darwin and Gould to debunk evolution but these people were completely convinced of the truth of it.It's all too easy to pretend you know something by claiming the mantle of "scientists," when you have no idea what you are talking about.
I have assembled this website over a twenty-year period from hundreds of different sources.
I've had my say, feel free to put me back on ignore.
Clays come from the natural weathering of rocks.and where did that come from....just appeared eh
All products of the Big Bang. What came before that or caused the BB, I have no idea so if you want to claim a supernatural Creator did it, I can't say you're wrong. I can only say there is no evidence either way but there is certainly no evidence that Creator is the God of the Bible.and where did that come from....just appeared eh
ChemEngineer
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2019
- 6,078
- 5,875
- 1,940
- Thread starter
- #51
www.TheStandard.uk
A.N. Wilson: It’s time Charles Darwin was exposed for the fraud he was
Two of his theories about evolution are wrong — and one resulting ‘science’ inspired the Nazis
A.N. WILSON7 AUGUST 2017
Charles Darwin, whose bearded face looks out at us from the £10 note, is about to be replaced by Jane Austen. I’ve spent the past five years of my life writing his biography and mastering his ideas. Which do you throw out of the balloon? Pride and Prejudice or The Origin of Species?
Funnily enough, in the course of my researches, I found both pride and prejudice in bucketloads among the ardent Darwinians, who would like us to believe that if you do not worship Darwin, you are some kind of nutter. He has become an object of veneration comparable to the old heroes of the Soviet Union, such as Lenin and Stalin, whose statues came tumbling down all over Eastern Europe 20 and more years ago.
We had our own version of a Soviet statue war in London some years ago when the statue of Darwin was moved in the Natural History Museum. It now looms over the stairs brooding over the visitors. It did originally sit there, but it was replaced by a statue of Richard Owen, who was, after all, the man who had started the Natural History Museum, and who was one of the great scientists of the 19th century. Then in 2009, the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth, Owen was booted out, and Darwin was put back, in very much the way that statues of Lenin replaced religious or monarchist icons in old Russia.
By the time Owen died (1892), Darwin’s reputation was fading, and by the beginning of the 20th century it had all but been eclipsed. Then, in the early to mid 20th century, the science of genetics got going. Science rediscovered the findings of Gregor Mendel (Darwin’s contemporary) and the most stupendous changes in life sciences became possible. Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, and thereafter the complexity and wonder of genetics, all demonstrable by scientific means, were laid bare. Only this week we have learned of medicine’s stupendous ability to zap embryonic, genetically transmuted disorders.
5 THINGS YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT CHARLES DARWIN
Darwinism is not science as Mendelian genetics are. It is a theory whose truth is NOT universally acknowledged. But when genetics got going there was also a revival, especially in Britain, of what came to be known as neo-Darwinism, a synthesis of old Darwinian ideas with the new genetics. Why look to Darwin, who made so many mistakes, rather than to Mendel? There was a simple answer to that. Neo-Darwinism was part scientific and in part a religion, or anti-religion. Its most famous exponent alive, Richard Dawkins, said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. You could say that the apparently impersonal processes of genetics did the same. But the neo-Darwinians could hardly, without absurdity, make Mendel their hero since he was a Roman Catholic monk. So Darwin became the figurehead for a system of thought that (childishly) thought there was one catch-all explanation for How Things Are in nature.
Inside Darwin's house of experiments complete with indoor slide
The great fact of evolution was an idea that had been current for at least 50 years before Darwin began his work. His own grandfather pioneered it in England, but on the continent, Goethe, Cuvier, Lamarck and many others realised that life forms evolve through myriad mutations. Darwin wanted to be the Man Who Invented Evolution, so he tried to airbrush all the predecessors out of the story. He even pretended that Erasmus Darwin, his grandfather, had had almost no influence on him. He then brought two new ideas to the evolutionary debate, both of which are false.
One is that evolution only proceeds little by little, that nature never makes leaps. The two most distinguished American palaeontologists of modern times, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, both demonstrated 30 years ago that this is not true. Palaeontology has come up with almost no missing links of the kind Darwinians believe in. The absence of such transitional forms is, Gould once said, the “trade secret of palaeontology”. Instead, the study of fossils and bones shows a series of jumps and leaps.
Hard-core Darwinians try to dispute this, and there are in fact some “missing links” — the Thrinaxodon, which is a mammal-like reptile, and the Panderichthys, a sort of fish-amphibian. But if the Darwinian theory of natural selection were true, fossils would by now have revealed hundreds of thousands of such examples. Species adapt themselves to their environment, but there are very few transmutations.
Darwin’s second big idea was that Nature is always ruthless: that the strong push out the weak, that compassion and compromise are for cissies whom Nature throws to the wall. Darwin borrowed the phrase “survival of the fittest” from the now forgotten and much discredited philosopher Herbert Spencer. He invented a consolation myth for the selfish class to which he belonged, to persuade them that their neglect of the poor, and the colossal gulf between them and the poor, was the way Nature intended things. He thought his class would outbreed the “savages” (ie the brown peoples of the globe) and the feckless, drunken Irish. Stubbornly, the unfittest survived. Brown, Jewish and Irish people had more babies than the Darwin class. The Darwinians then had to devise the hateful pseudo-science of eugenics, which was a scheme to prevent the poor from breeding.
Now that we have replaced Darwin on the tenner with the more benign figure of Miss Austen, is this not the moment to reconsider taking down his statue from the Natural History Museum, and replacing him with the man who was sitting on the staircase until 2009 — the museum’s founder, Richard Owen?
A.N. Wilson: It’s time Charles Darwin was exposed for the fraud he was
Two of his theories about evolution are wrong — and one resulting ‘science’ inspired the Nazis
VISIONARY OR CRANK? CHARLES DARWIN IN 1881, PHOTOGRAPHED BY JULIA MARGARET CAMERON
PICTORIAL PRESS LTD / ALAMY
A.N. WILSON7 AUGUST 2017
Charles Darwin, whose bearded face looks out at us from the £10 note, is about to be replaced by Jane Austen. I’ve spent the past five years of my life writing his biography and mastering his ideas. Which do you throw out of the balloon? Pride and Prejudice or The Origin of Species?
Funnily enough, in the course of my researches, I found both pride and prejudice in bucketloads among the ardent Darwinians, who would like us to believe that if you do not worship Darwin, you are some kind of nutter. He has become an object of veneration comparable to the old heroes of the Soviet Union, such as Lenin and Stalin, whose statues came tumbling down all over Eastern Europe 20 and more years ago.
We had our own version of a Soviet statue war in London some years ago when the statue of Darwin was moved in the Natural History Museum. It now looms over the stairs brooding over the visitors. It did originally sit there, but it was replaced by a statue of Richard Owen, who was, after all, the man who had started the Natural History Museum, and who was one of the great scientists of the 19th century. Then in 2009, the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth, Owen was booted out, and Darwin was put back, in very much the way that statues of Lenin replaced religious or monarchist icons in old Russia.
By the time Owen died (1892), Darwin’s reputation was fading, and by the beginning of the 20th century it had all but been eclipsed. Then, in the early to mid 20th century, the science of genetics got going. Science rediscovered the findings of Gregor Mendel (Darwin’s contemporary) and the most stupendous changes in life sciences became possible. Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, and thereafter the complexity and wonder of genetics, all demonstrable by scientific means, were laid bare. Only this week we have learned of medicine’s stupendous ability to zap embryonic, genetically transmuted disorders.
5 THINGS YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT CHARLES DARWIN
Darwinism is not science as Mendelian genetics are. It is a theory whose truth is NOT universally acknowledged. But when genetics got going there was also a revival, especially in Britain, of what came to be known as neo-Darwinism, a synthesis of old Darwinian ideas with the new genetics. Why look to Darwin, who made so many mistakes, rather than to Mendel? There was a simple answer to that. Neo-Darwinism was part scientific and in part a religion, or anti-religion. Its most famous exponent alive, Richard Dawkins, said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. You could say that the apparently impersonal processes of genetics did the same. But the neo-Darwinians could hardly, without absurdity, make Mendel their hero since he was a Roman Catholic monk. So Darwin became the figurehead for a system of thought that (childishly) thought there was one catch-all explanation for How Things Are in nature.
Inside Darwin's house of experiments complete with indoor slide
The great fact of evolution was an idea that had been current for at least 50 years before Darwin began his work. His own grandfather pioneered it in England, but on the continent, Goethe, Cuvier, Lamarck and many others realised that life forms evolve through myriad mutations. Darwin wanted to be the Man Who Invented Evolution, so he tried to airbrush all the predecessors out of the story. He even pretended that Erasmus Darwin, his grandfather, had had almost no influence on him. He then brought two new ideas to the evolutionary debate, both of which are false.
One is that evolution only proceeds little by little, that nature never makes leaps. The two most distinguished American palaeontologists of modern times, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, both demonstrated 30 years ago that this is not true. Palaeontology has come up with almost no missing links of the kind Darwinians believe in. The absence of such transitional forms is, Gould once said, the “trade secret of palaeontology”. Instead, the study of fossils and bones shows a series of jumps and leaps.
Hard-core Darwinians try to dispute this, and there are in fact some “missing links” — the Thrinaxodon, which is a mammal-like reptile, and the Panderichthys, a sort of fish-amphibian. But if the Darwinian theory of natural selection were true, fossils would by now have revealed hundreds of thousands of such examples. Species adapt themselves to their environment, but there are very few transmutations.
Darwin’s second big idea was that Nature is always ruthless: that the strong push out the weak, that compassion and compromise are for cissies whom Nature throws to the wall. Darwin borrowed the phrase “survival of the fittest” from the now forgotten and much discredited philosopher Herbert Spencer. He invented a consolation myth for the selfish class to which he belonged, to persuade them that their neglect of the poor, and the colossal gulf between them and the poor, was the way Nature intended things. He thought his class would outbreed the “savages” (ie the brown peoples of the globe) and the feckless, drunken Irish. Stubbornly, the unfittest survived. Brown, Jewish and Irish people had more babies than the Darwin class. The Darwinians then had to devise the hateful pseudo-science of eugenics, which was a scheme to prevent the poor from breeding.
We all know where that led, and the uses to which the National Socialists put Darwin’s dangerous ideas.Now that we have replaced Darwin on the tenner with the more benign figure of Miss Austen, is this not the moment to reconsider taking down his statue from the Natural History Museum, and replacing him with the man who was sitting on the staircase until 2009 — the museum’s founder, Richard Owen?
Darwin did his work almost 200 years ago. If someone wanted to disprove evolution you'd think they would dispute the recent work on the topic. Attacking Darwin personally takes nothing from his theory.www.TheStandard.uk
A.N. Wilson: It’s time Charles Darwin was exposed for the fraud he was
Two of his theories about evolution are wrong — and one resulting ‘science’ inspired the Nazis
VISIONARY OR CRANK? CHARLES DARWIN IN 1881, PHOTOGRAPHED BY JULIA MARGARET CAMERONView attachment 917455
PICTORIAL PRESS LTD / ALAMY
A.N. WILSON7 AUGUST 2017
Charles Darwin, whose bearded face looks out at us from the £10 note, is about to be replaced by Jane Austen. I’ve spent the past five years of my life writing his biography and mastering his ideas. Which do you throw out of the balloon? Pride and Prejudice or The Origin of Species?
Funnily enough, in the course of my researches, I found both pride and prejudice in bucketloads among the ardent Darwinians, who would like us to believe that if you do not worship Darwin, you are some kind of nutter. He has become an object of veneration comparable to the old heroes of the Soviet Union, such as Lenin and Stalin, whose statues came tumbling down all over Eastern Europe 20 and more years ago.
We had our own version of a Soviet statue war in London some years ago when the statue of Darwin was moved in the Natural History Museum. It now looms over the stairs brooding over the visitors. It did originally sit there, but it was replaced by a statue of Richard Owen, who was, after all, the man who had started the Natural History Museum, and who was one of the great scientists of the 19th century. Then in 2009, the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth, Owen was booted out, and Darwin was put back, in very much the way that statues of Lenin replaced religious or monarchist icons in old Russia.
By the time Owen died (1892), Darwin’s reputation was fading, and by the beginning of the 20th century it had all but been eclipsed. Then, in the early to mid 20th century, the science of genetics got going. Science rediscovered the findings of Gregor Mendel (Darwin’s contemporary) and the most stupendous changes in life sciences became possible. Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, and thereafter the complexity and wonder of genetics, all demonstrable by scientific means, were laid bare. Only this week we have learned of medicine’s stupendous ability to zap embryonic, genetically transmuted disorders.
5 THINGS YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT CHARLES DARWIN
Darwinism is not science as Mendelian genetics are. It is a theory whose truth is NOT universally acknowledged. But when genetics got going there was also a revival, especially in Britain, of what came to be known as neo-Darwinism, a synthesis of old Darwinian ideas with the new genetics. Why look to Darwin, who made so many mistakes, rather than to Mendel? There was a simple answer to that. Neo-Darwinism was part scientific and in part a religion, or anti-religion. Its most famous exponent alive, Richard Dawkins, said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. You could say that the apparently impersonal processes of genetics did the same. But the neo-Darwinians could hardly, without absurdity, make Mendel their hero since he was a Roman Catholic monk. So Darwin became the figurehead for a system of thought that (childishly) thought there was one catch-all explanation for How Things Are in nature.
View attachment 917456
Inside Darwin's house of experiments complete with indoor slide
The great fact of evolution was an idea that had been current for at least 50 years before Darwin began his work. His own grandfather pioneered it in England, but on the continent, Goethe, Cuvier, Lamarck and many others realised that life forms evolve through myriad mutations. Darwin wanted to be the Man Who Invented Evolution, so he tried to airbrush all the predecessors out of the story. He even pretended that Erasmus Darwin, his grandfather, had had almost no influence on him. He then brought two new ideas to the evolutionary debate, both of which are false.
One is that evolution only proceeds little by little, that nature never makes leaps. The two most distinguished American palaeontologists of modern times, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, both demonstrated 30 years ago that this is not true. Palaeontology has come up with almost no missing links of the kind Darwinians believe in. The absence of such transitional forms is, Gould once said, the “trade secret of palaeontology”. Instead, the study of fossils and bones shows a series of jumps and leaps.
Hard-core Darwinians try to dispute this, and there are in fact some “missing links” — the Thrinaxodon, which is a mammal-like reptile, and the Panderichthys, a sort of fish-amphibian. But if the Darwinian theory of natural selection were true, fossils would by now have revealed hundreds of thousands of such examples. Species adapt themselves to their environment, but there are very few transmutations.
Darwin’s second big idea was that Nature is always ruthless: that the strong push out the weak, that compassion and compromise are for cissies whom Nature throws to the wall. Darwin borrowed the phrase “survival of the fittest” from the now forgotten and much discredited philosopher Herbert Spencer. He invented a consolation myth for the selfish class to which he belonged, to persuade them that their neglect of the poor, and the colossal gulf between them and the poor, was the way Nature intended things. He thought his class would outbreed the “savages” (ie the brown peoples of the globe) and the feckless, drunken Irish. Stubbornly, the unfittest survived. Brown, Jewish and Irish people had more babies than the Darwin class. The Darwinians then had to devise the hateful pseudo-science of eugenics, which was a scheme to prevent the poor from breeding.
We all know where that led, and the uses to which the National Socialists put Darwin’s dangerous ideas.
Now that we have replaced Darwin on the tenner with the more benign figure of Miss Austen, is this not the moment to reconsider taking down his statue from the Natural History Museum, and replacing him with the man who was sitting on the staircase until 2009 — the museum’s founder, Richard Owen?
ChemEngineer
Diamond Member
- Feb 5, 2019
- 6,078
- 5,875
- 1,940
- Thread starter
- #54
Sure, "Darwin was a genius," about like Al Gore.Darwin was a genius. He is not responsible for Stalin. Freud was
a genius too and not responsible for Jeffrey Epstein. Sophists will
be sophists
Same for Fraud.
You've been drinking the Kool Aid. Let me guess: You voted for Biden.
A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
A topnotch WordPress.com site
theevolutionfraud.wordpress.com
Loading…
themiserableofdarwinism.blogspot.com
wrong---I am a registered democrat----and voted NEITHER for Biden or Gore or HellcatSure, "Darwin was a genius," about like Al Gore.
Same for Fraud.
You've been drinking the Kool Aid. Let me guess: You voted for Biden.
A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
A topnotch WordPress.com site
Loading…
themiserableofdarwinism.blogspot.com
Gimme that ol' time religion with Bronze Age fire and brimstone.No, you are the fool and will face G-d as your judge when He sentences you to eternal torment in the Lake of Fire unless you repent.
And smiting, MOAR smiting.
www.TheStandard.uk
A.N. Wilson: It’s time Charles Darwin was exposed for the fraud he was
Two of his theories about evolution are wrong — and one resulting ‘science’ inspired the Nazis
VISIONARY OR CRANK? CHARLES DARWIN IN 1881, PHOTOGRAPHED BY JULIA MARGARET CAMERONView attachment 917455
PICTORIAL PRESS LTD / ALAMY
A.N. WILSON7 AUGUST 2017
Charles Darwin, whose bearded face looks out at us from the £10 note, is about to be replaced by Jane Austen. I’ve spent the past five years of my life writing his biography and mastering his ideas. Which do you throw out of the balloon? Pride and Prejudice or The Origin of Species?
Funnily enough, in the course of my researches, I found both pride and prejudice in bucketloads among the ardent Darwinians, who would like us to believe that if you do not worship Darwin, you are some kind of nutter. He has become an object of veneration comparable to the old heroes of the Soviet Union, such as Lenin and Stalin, whose statues came tumbling down all over Eastern Europe 20 and more years ago.
We had our own version of a Soviet statue war in London some years ago when the statue of Darwin was moved in the Natural History Museum. It now looms over the stairs brooding over the visitors. It did originally sit there, but it was replaced by a statue of Richard Owen, who was, after all, the man who had started the Natural History Museum, and who was one of the great scientists of the 19th century. Then in 2009, the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth, Owen was booted out, and Darwin was put back, in very much the way that statues of Lenin replaced religious or monarchist icons in old Russia.
By the time Owen died (1892), Darwin’s reputation was fading, and by the beginning of the 20th century it had all but been eclipsed. Then, in the early to mid 20th century, the science of genetics got going. Science rediscovered the findings of Gregor Mendel (Darwin’s contemporary) and the most stupendous changes in life sciences became possible. Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, and thereafter the complexity and wonder of genetics, all demonstrable by scientific means, were laid bare. Only this week we have learned of medicine’s stupendous ability to zap embryonic, genetically transmuted disorders.
5 THINGS YOU MAY NOT KNOW ABOUT CHARLES DARWIN
Darwinism is not science as Mendelian genetics are. It is a theory whose truth is NOT universally acknowledged. But when genetics got going there was also a revival, especially in Britain, of what came to be known as neo-Darwinism, a synthesis of old Darwinian ideas with the new genetics. Why look to Darwin, who made so many mistakes, rather than to Mendel? There was a simple answer to that. Neo-Darwinism was part scientific and in part a religion, or anti-religion. Its most famous exponent alive, Richard Dawkins, said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist. You could say that the apparently impersonal processes of genetics did the same. But the neo-Darwinians could hardly, without absurdity, make Mendel their hero since he was a Roman Catholic monk. So Darwin became the figurehead for a system of thought that (childishly) thought there was one catch-all explanation for How Things Are in nature.
View attachment 917456
Inside Darwin's house of experiments complete with indoor slide
The great fact of evolution was an idea that had been current for at least 50 years before Darwin began his work. His own grandfather pioneered it in England, but on the continent, Goethe, Cuvier, Lamarck and many others realised that life forms evolve through myriad mutations. Darwin wanted to be the Man Who Invented Evolution, so he tried to airbrush all the predecessors out of the story. He even pretended that Erasmus Darwin, his grandfather, had had almost no influence on him. He then brought two new ideas to the evolutionary debate, both of which are false.
One is that evolution only proceeds little by little, that nature never makes leaps. The two most distinguished American palaeontologists of modern times, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, both demonstrated 30 years ago that this is not true. Palaeontology has come up with almost no missing links of the kind Darwinians believe in. The absence of such transitional forms is, Gould once said, the “trade secret of palaeontology”. Instead, the study of fossils and bones shows a series of jumps and leaps.
Hard-core Darwinians try to dispute this, and there are in fact some “missing links” — the Thrinaxodon, which is a mammal-like reptile, and the Panderichthys, a sort of fish-amphibian. But if the Darwinian theory of natural selection were true, fossils would by now have revealed hundreds of thousands of such examples. Species adapt themselves to their environment, but there are very few transmutations.
Darwin’s second big idea was that Nature is always ruthless: that the strong push out the weak, that compassion and compromise are for cissies whom Nature throws to the wall. Darwin borrowed the phrase “survival of the fittest” from the now forgotten and much discredited philosopher Herbert Spencer. He invented a consolation myth for the selfish class to which he belonged, to persuade them that their neglect of the poor, and the colossal gulf between them and the poor, was the way Nature intended things. He thought his class would outbreed the “savages” (ie the brown peoples of the globe) and the feckless, drunken Irish. Stubbornly, the unfittest survived. Brown, Jewish and Irish people had more babies than the Darwin class. The Darwinians then had to devise the hateful pseudo-science of eugenics, which was a scheme to prevent the poor from breeding.
We all know where that led, and the uses to which the National Socialists put Darwin’s dangerous ideas.
Now that we have replaced Darwin on the tenner with the more benign figure of Miss Austen, is this not the moment to reconsider taking down his statue from the Natural History Museum, and replacing him with the man who was sitting on the staircase until 2009 — the museum’s founder, Richard Owen?
Another of your long, tedious, cut and paste diatribes from a newspaper columnist.
Sure, "Darwin was a genius," about like Al Gore.
Same for Fraud.
You've been drinking the Kool Aid. Let me guess: You voted for Biden.
A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent
A topnotch WordPress.com site
Loading…
themiserableofdarwinism.blogspot.com
Your cutting and pasting is typically from someone's personal blog.
As you can't refute the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution, you're reduced to spamming threads with opinions of religious extremists like yourself.
Yes, actually, it does.Yeah and where did that come from.....stuff just doesnt materialize
Darwin is so 19th century.Darwin did his work almost 200 years ago. If someone wanted to disprove evolution you'd think they would dispute the recent work on the topic. Attacking Darwin personally takes nothing from his theory.
No one looks at external traits anymore.
Today, criticality in dynamic systems is where it's at.
The people arguing "probability" have no clue how this works, and if you mention criticality their eyes glaze over with a glassy stare.
The neuroscience people are the ones making massive new strides in understanding critical systems. (Ask for references, I'll provide). The probabilities can change by several orders of magnitude under critical conditions. The Ising model is presently one of the most accessible ways to study criticality.
The short story is, a tiny change in ONE base pair can drive the entire biological system into a critical state, and once in that state, both shape and behavior acquire real time fluidity.
If you really want to know about this, study phase changes in the Ising model. Phase means like liquid vs gas or solid, and in this case may also mean shape related changes like a triangular lattice instead of a square one.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 957
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 388
- Replies
- 66
- Views
- 668
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 128
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 7K
- Views
- 49K
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 128
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 28
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8051
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-