Your ignorant nonsensical response is simply false for many reasons,
First, your claim of “widely accepted science” is a fallacious argument. It matters not how many wrote it down or accepted it. It’s like saying that Einstein was wrong to challenge the dominant worldview of the widely accepted...
The Cambrian period was much longer than that but it’s totally irrelevant.
The point is that the enormous diversification of life of the Cambrian period appeared without any evolutionary history. There were no transitional steps to explain the Cambrian life. There was no gradual change to give...
As I said many times, all my sources are from the other side of the argument. I.e., mainstream sources that support evolution. Evolutionists like yourself wouldn’t accept otherwise, would you?
That said, my sources do not try to refute evolution, yes, they may hold evolution as an axiom but...
It’s again your typical escape route, every time I question your reference for morality or its meaning to you, you try these tricks to avoid answering the question.
Morality like anything else is relative. Without a defining reference, how can you claim anything to be moral or immoral?
On my...
It’s your typical meaningless denial. Anyways, I’m not expecting anything else from you.
First, I’m not making any claim; I’m only informing you and others of the latest in the field, which you may not be aware of. I share the info and support every word.
Second, the article clearly stated...
Of course no animal changes to another, it’s only a ridiculous myth. Yet all your evidence are actually against evolution. See the clarification below.
All the breeds of animals that humans have for food and companionship essentially stay as the same species, no matter what the extent of the...
Except that the latest finds of these scientific disciplines are what disproved the fundamental assumptions of the contemporary ToE, i.e., “the modern synthesis”. See # 911, #753 & #781.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)
Physiology is...
You almost never support your claim, as if your mere opinion is enough support to your view. It’s not. Your typical pathetic stance is like “I know better that’s why I'm right and you guys should listen to me". It’s beyond ridiculous. Unless you support your claims, no one would take your...
Yes, science is ever changing. Our scientific views are relative to our knowledge at a given point in time. Right or wrong, Darwin provided his input; the concern now is not Darwin as a person/scientist but rather the validity of ideas. Not original evolutionary ideas but rather the contemporary...
Herbert Spencer! Again! You cannot be serious!
How many times we went over this? You are still very confused.
The concern here is ideas/concepts not persons. Yes, earlier on this thread we touched on “Social Darwinism”, “Scientific Racism”, “Eugenics", etc. the influence of the ToE was merely...
There is no benefit in wasting time responding to nonsense, mere denial, emotional accusations and absurd empty claims but I’ll continue to comment/respond whenever it would be of benefit to do so.
Those who insist on ignorant denial are sure free to do so. Those who want to verify the facts...
Aren’t we long past that point?
Don’t we all know that "survival of the fittest" is simply a popular term that refers to the process of “natural selection"? You may argue it’s not same or equal but it all depends on the understanding/definition of fitness. If biological fitness is a measure of...
We cannot compare Darwin’s evolutionary ideas to modern biology. Modern biology includes many fields that where unknown during Darwin’s time, such as epigenetics, genomics, systems biology, molecular biology, etc. The comparison has to be "apple to apple". As Ernst Walter Mayr put it...
This is a typical example of hypocrisy and twisted logic to adapt a concept whenever convenient and deny the exact same whenever convenient.
Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person or did the things attributed to him (miracles)? On what basis you accept that George Washington...
Everything in our realm is relative; the definition of a relative entity is always dependent on a reference (The definition is only as good/valid as the reference that defines it). Axioms are references but can also be relative. Without the true absolute reference at the top of the hierarchy...
you're not serious, no one would take you seriously. at least, I'm not. No one would benefit from ignorant claims intended for wasting time. that's all what you're here for. wasting some time in some nonsense.
have a good
night.
As usual, you fail to understand but I'm not surprised. the articles view of “Darwin's dilemma" is irrelevant, the point is what “Darwin's dilemma" as a term means or refers to in the scientific articles.