IBDaMann
Well-known member
Instead of onesies-twosies, why don't you just publish your entire Ignore List. Tell us whose ideas drive you back into your snowflake safe-space.
Christians are anti-science.
- Thread starter Grugore
- Start date
Darwinian evolution included more than Origin of Species. Descent of Man, pangenesis, et al were all part and parcell of Darwin's evolutionary scheme. Work subsequent to Darwin demonstrated some flaws and mistakes in his evolutionary program.
It took decades, and only through repeated testing for falsifiability that evolution by natural selection was widely acknowledged as a verified and robust scientific theory. Information came to light only after Darwin's death that allowed scientists to test his hypothesis.
Prime examples:
-Transitional fossils in the fossil record
-Observations of descent with modification, rather than intelligent design
-Observations of modifications by natural selection in real time
-Discovery of a universal genetic code, strongly indicating all life has a common genetic origin.
Evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly tested for falsifiability, and has passed with flying colors.
Sidebar: If you walk into a university statistics department and say you want to do a PhD in quantum mechanics, they are going to laugh in your face and tell you to go over to the physics department and talk to the physics researchers
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. Darwin defined his theory and published it in Origin of Species. You are free to read it. All other people who aren't Charles Darwin who attempt to redefine Darwin's theory are in error.
Ergo, you are in error.
Nope. Darwin specifically avoided this explosive topic. He didn't want to get drawn and quartered. Anyone claiming that he covered this in his theory is lying.
Nope. Darwin mused about many things, especially about topics pertaining to Christianity, and none of them were incorporated by Charles Darwin into his theory. Darwin did not publish any later editions to "update" his theory to be anything other than what he had published previously. Nobody gets to claim that he did.
It was never "acknowledged" as a scientific theory because it isn't a scientific theory. You should demand a refund.
There is no such thing as a "transitional fossil." I think you are referring to indications of different species possibly forming an evolutionary chain over time. No fossil indicates into what its species was evolving and no species (or fossil) magically transforms. All perceived evolutionary chains are speculative and despite your unwillingness to accept the idea, we actually do not have time machines and not a single evolutionary speculation has ever been verified.
Your claims of science being involved are absurd.
Genetics has given us great insights and has spawned much speculation. We still don't have any time machines. Those UFOs that keep visiting our planet refuse to lend us one.
Evolution by natural selection has been repeatedly tested for falsifiability, and has passed with flying colors.
Au contraire, mon frère, you aren't familiar with university math departments. Ask me how I know. Allow me to mock you for your absolutely absurd assertion.
The next time your highschool has a "college fair" ask an actual member of a math department about graduate options in applied mathematics. Tell him you want to do a thesis in quantum mechanics or in cryptography. Tell him that you just love statistical math. See what he tells you. He won't refer you to another department.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
I'm still waiting for him to answer that very same question for me. He seems to think that my being a Christian explains something, but he hasn't said what it supposedly explains.
Whatever it is, I bet that it will be another error in logic...
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Instead of onesies-twosies, why don't you just publish your entire Ignore List. Tell us whose ideas drive you back into your snowflake safe-space.
I'm part of it as well... Many intelligent minds on this forum are part of it.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Well, isn't this so sad? Not.
This message is hidden because Into the Night is on your ignore list.
Am I on it too?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I'm certain ThatOwlCoward's list will reveal JPP's cognitive achievers ... an "honor roll" if you will. Essentially there is prestige involved in making that list.
Into the Night
Verified User
Darwin didn't have an evolutionary program. He had a theory, which was falsified. Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution. He only created the Theory of Natural Selection. That was falsified.
Nope. It was falsified.
Nope. It happened while he was still alive.
Define 'transitional fossil'. The lineage of fossils is unknown.
A conclusion is not an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. Science does not use supporting evidence.
A conclusion is not an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof. Science does not use supporting evidence.
A conclusion, not an indication. It could simply mean that life as common processes that require the same encoding in genes to exist. No universal genetic code has been found.
Nope. It was falsifed.
There is no such thing as a 'statistics department' at a university. When you study quantum physics, you will be studying math, primarily probability math, but also some in statistics. It is not science. It is math.
Into the Night
Verified User
That's not really much of a bet. It's only a matter of time.
Into the Night
Verified User
I'm certain ThatOwlCoward's list will reveal JPP's cognitive achievers ... an "honor roll" if you will. Essentially there is prestige involved in making that list.
If you're not, I beat you to it! Another first for Into the Night!
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Yeah, that's why I'm pressing for the list like it Trump's Tax returns or Obama's birth certificate. It's my shot at redemption.If you're not, I beat you to it! Another first for Into the Night!
Into the Night
Verified User
Go for it!
Jesus Christ, it is pointless to read anything you write. You do not know jack shit about what you are talking about.
Last edited:
Good boy, you know how to use Google and spend time reading obscure rightwing science denier blogs.
Lot's of word salad, and yet not one single solitary link to a body of reputable, peer reviewed scientific literature showing the theory of evolution by natural selection has been falsified and debunked.
https://www.interacademies.org/stat...ecently in June 2006,of the science of nature.
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I think we can agree that it takes a special class of moron to refer to The Origen of Species as a "right-wing denier blog."
The good news is that you are in a "special class."
I think we can agree that it takes a special class of moron to refer to The Origen of Species as a "word salad."
The good news is that you are in a "special class."
Aaaahhh, the scientifically illiterate moron strikes again!
There is no such thing as "scientific" literature. There is only literature. Publishing a document does not make science. There is no topic that, in and of itself, converts literature into "scientific" literature.
You need to get a refund on your education.
Darwin's theory is unfalsifiable and thus has never been falsified. Whatever the current theory is on evolutionary lineages is DEBUNKED every time we find a new fossil that adds new information.
^ Still no links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory of evolution by natural selection has been debunked and falsified.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Don't expect any links. Nobody has any more insight into Charles Darwin's theory than Charles Darwin's words in The Origin of Species. Nonetheless, I see you prefer your scientifically illiterate prattle so why don't you go read up on some misinformation? There's plenty of it out there and I don't have any.
When the day comes you want to learn something, ... actually read my posts.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You claim the theory of evolution by natural selection is easily debunked.
Still waiting on you to provide links to any reputable body of peer reviewed scientific literature demonstrating the theory has been debunked.
Simply parroting what you read on an obscure, rightwing science denier blogs does not cut the mustard.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Yes, you are an idiot. You picked Stanford who decided to take Statistics out of the Math department and to make it a separate Department owing to its applicability to virtually every other field of study. Standford could have called it the Department of Applied Mathematics but I guess they just wanted to focus on Statistics. Good for them. When one gets an undergrad degree from that department, the degree received is Mathematical and Computational Science, not Physics or Chemistry.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Charles Darwin came through in spades with evidence/observations from the Galapagos. They're all in The Origin of Species. Try reading it.
No. Read my posts for comprehension.
1. Darwin's theory is unfalsifiable and has thus never been falsified. I'm not going to repeat this for you.
2. Every time a fossil is discovered that adds new information, the species lineage models change, thus creating a new model that debunks the old model. Let me know if you don't grasp how that works.
Please hold your breath while you wait.
[by the way, the easy way to identify totally scientifically illiterate morons who thinks they are supergeniuses is the shout "Show me peer reviewed documents!" They/you are blissfully unaware that "peer review" has nothing to do with science ... and instead believe that it is science. It really is way too funny. It is pathetically funny.
This is a reputably peer-reviewed document:
Let me guess ... you are confused, right? You just don't understand, right? ... because you don't know what "peer reviewing" is or what it is for.
Don't you think you should first learn what you plan to talk about?