|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 22:10:37 GMT 10
...So what you're saying is, there is none.
Just unmitigated extrapolation coupled with unrestrained imagination generously sprinkled with wishful desires.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 22:24:36 GMT 10
"...Genetic laws showed that acquired traits are not passed on, and that genetic inheritance takes place according to certain unchanging laws. These laws supported the view that species remain unchanged. No matter how much the cows that Darwin saw in England's animal fairs bred, the species itself would never change: cows would always remain cows.
The genetic laws discovered by Mendel proved very damaging to the theory of evolution.
Gregor Mendel announced the laws of genetic inheritance that he discovered as a result of long experiment and observation in a scientific paper published in 1865. But this paper only attracted the attention of the scientific world towards the end of the century. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the truth of these laws had been accepted by the whole scientific community. This was a serious dead-end for Darwin's theory, which tried to base the concept of "useful traits" on Lamarck.
Here we must correct a general misapprehension: Mendel opposed not only Lamarck's model of evolution, but also Darwin's. As the article "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin," published in the Journal of Heredity, makes clear, "he [Mendel] was familiar with The Origin of Species ...and he was opposed to Darwin's theory; Darwin was arguing for descent with modification through natural selection, Mendel was in favor of the orthodox doctrine of special creation."4
The laws discovered by Mendel put Darwinism in a very difficult position. For these reasons, scientists who supported Darwinism tried to develop a different model of evolution in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Thus was born "neo-Darwinism."
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 22:28:38 GMT 10
...So what you're saying is, there is none. Just unmitigated extrapolation coupled with unrestrained imagination generously sprinkled with wishful desires. So speaks a Taxi Driver with no tertiary education and no understanding of science or qualifications other than a drivers license. The evidence is overwhelming but that doesn't work on your delusions. Evolution is indeed the central unifying concept in biology, but researchers in many fields including molecular and cellular biology, developmental biology, microbiology and neuroscience have only recently begun to think seriously in terms of evolution. The chief reason for this shift in thinking is the growing list of organisms — from bacteria to primates — with sequenced genomes, plus the development of increasingly sophisticated ways of interpreting DNA and protein sequences.I appreciate that your attempt at an ad hominem has about as much actual research applied to it, as that tabloid you published... Self-pubished. ('Cause we both know that no competent publisher would have bought that garbage.) Care to continue guessing? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 22:32:39 GMT 10
Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, quickly grasped the significance of DNA to evolution, however. In June 1989, long before any genomes had been sequenced, he wrote: “ I think the most significant aspect of DNA is the support it gives evolution by natural selection”. Charles Darwin didn’t know about DNA, but in 1857 he wrote to his friend and colleague Thomas Henry Huxley, saying: “ The time will come, I believe, though I shall not live to see it, when we shall have fairly true genealogical trees of each great kingdom of Nature”. Darwin would no doubt have been delighted to see how modern genetics supports and confirms many of his ideas, and provides evidence not only for what has happened in the course of evolution, but precisely how living things evolve. DNA is the forensic evidence for evolution. He said "I think" which suggests his spurious conclusions are wrought with suppositions. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 22:35:39 GMT 10
Show me some sign of cross-species evolution, and I may be convinced.
According to evolutionists the world is over a billion years old; you'd think there'd be more transitional fossils lying around.
You accept evolution with LESS evidence than you'd require for the existence of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 22:36:44 GMT 10
He said "I think" which suggests his spurious conclusions are wrought with suppositions. whereas you as a Taxi driver know all about a Jewish Zombie. You are Delusional. Seriously Delusional. Again. An ad hominem based on about as much research and accuracy as that tabloid you wrote. I'm not surprised you got it wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 22:39:07 GMT 10
It's not that I am always right; it just you are so often wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 23:31:20 GMT 10
you are a joke delusional and in serious need of psychiatric care Hows your imaginary Jewish zombie friend? Meeting him for coffee are you? How the Taxi driving working for you? You have PTSD, right Buzz? Isn't that a mental illness often accompanied with delusions---(Just sayin'.) Did you take your meds this morning? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 23:35:02 GMT 10
Show me some sign of cross-species evolution, and I may be convinced. According to evolutionists the world is over a billion years old; you'd think there'd be more transitional fossils lying around. You accept evolution with LESS evidence than you'd require for the existence of Jesus. a horse and a donkey These animals are the same genus. Offspring of horse and donkey produces a mule. A mule is sterile. ...So where is the macro-evolution? I asked for evidence of cross-species evolution. Your examples don't fit the criteria. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 23:36:39 GMT 10
Where did you get the Taxi driving thing from?
---Is that more speculation and guess work we've all come to know from your research?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 23:51:56 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 4, 2013 23:53:10 GMT 10
These animals are the same genus. Offspring of horse and donkey produces a mule. A mule is sterile. ...So where is the macro-evolution? I asked for evidence of cross-species evolution. Your examples don't fit the criteria. horses and donkeys and camels and llamas are different species as are lions and tigers and sheep and goats - and they can all be cross bred and all evolved from common ancestor species as did humans and chimps and the DNA proves it No. The DNA proves we are from the same biosphere, which is a no-brainer. There is no creation out there who would deny the existence of Microevolution. I am asking you to prove Macroevolution. Macroevolution is a philosophical leap with no basis in science. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 5, 2013 0:04:07 GMT 10
Who is Mr Campbell, Buzz?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 5, 2013 4:18:55 GMT 10
Who is Mr. Campbell?
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 6, 2013 7:13:24 GMT 10
I don't know what that has to do with me.
You're the one making baseless assertions.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 16, 2013 8:22:37 GMT 10
|
|
