What Have Darwinists Said That's True?

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Camanintx :

So when are you going to provide those references that dispute the transitional nature of Tiktaalik?

About the same time that you provide references that PROVE it's transitional ...
There is NO evidence that it's a ' transitional species' between fish and four footed land creatures/ vertebrates NONE !

talk about Tiktaalik being a ' transitonal' speces is just cheap talk / pure speculation...All this means is some ' so called' experts with a vested interest in finding ostensibly ' transitional' fossils....believe it LOOKS like a transitional species...Well SO WHAT ??? It's still ' technically a fish ' remember ?

A fish is NOT a transitional species between land and sea creatures. A fish IS A FISH....And this ancient ' fish' was 100 percent aquatic... ENDOFSTOREY !!!!

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact:

Kettlewell himself admtted that he doctored his photos and that the moths in the pictures were actually pinned or glued to the bark of trees...this is discussed in Richard Lewontin's ( a renown biologist and a staunch Darwinist btw ) book ' It ain't necessarily so ' . I read that book and know of whence I speak...

But that's not what's in red, is it? I already said that the photos were staged; the photos aren't data, they're illustration. What you said in red was that his data was doctored. This is a lie and a slur on an eminent scientist. If you cannot substantiate it and you have an ounce of honor, you would (1) withdraw it (2) never make it again.

Btw I could get all pretentious and say something equally absurd by similarly saying that repeated claims made here vis a vis ' Darwin being an agnostic are a ' flat out lie. Support, withdraw, or admit.'

Are you talking to me? I never made any such claim, nor do I see their relevance.

Of course I'm making no such class claims, I was merely asking to see evidence of this...

You're erroneously claiming that ' I'm lying' chump

I did. And can you not discuss without name-calling? Tsk, tsk. For example, the person you claimed was a biologist was a newspaper reporter. Now a person who valued their credibility would simply admit that he was mistaken and thank me for the correction. But a creationist...? He never said what you attributed to him. Nor did any biologist at that conference ever claim that horses are not descended from a common ancestor, Etc. etc.

To use another example, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, yet you keep bringing it up. Now, are you ignorant of that fact, or are you dishonest? Which?

SO PROVE IT...OR YOU SHUT UP !

Did that. Now remember your manners.

Autodidact:

Nobody ever debated that all civil war re-enactment were/are ' staged'...So the analogy DOES NOT apply...

That's not the issue. The moths were staged just as is a civil war re-enactment--because they're illustrations, not data. As I said, do you not understand the difference between an illustration and data, or do you not? If not, why should we pay any attention to anything you say? If you do, then why keep harping on this?

Kettlewell ( much like Ernst Haeckel ) did NOT admit his photos were staged until long after the fact...Misrepresenting them as ' Natural'

Not even going to bother googling this for accuracy, since it makes no difference. It wouldn't matter if he drew them with crayons--they're only illustrations.

That's academic dishonesty/ fraud ...No matter how you slice it ! Reportedly, his data was fudged too...[/quote] Ah, now we've backtracked to "reportedly." And where, pray tell, was this "reported?" Was it by chance in a creationist website, famous for its inaccuracy?

 

[Autodidact]

Scientists cannot find a single transitional species which links any distinct/ recognized ' phylum'

I don't even know what you mean by this. Do you know any evolutionary biology at all? How could a transitional species link phylum???

They can't ' irrefutably ' find the mysterious ' missing links' between fish and four footed vertebrates either, nor between amphibians and reptiles, nor between reptiles and birds, nor between reptiles and mammals....nor even between apes and man...

Well, of course they've found all of these things, but some there is none so blind as he who will not see, so creationists refuse to accept them. Since they are not biologists, biology does and moves along to learn more.

It's equally true that all of ' evolutionary biology's ' phylogenetic family trees, are spurious / have no basis in scientific fact ! That's quite a problem since Darwinism is supposed to be science !

So you say, but you never back this up, and who are you? Some anonymous person on the internet who seems to have a rather weak grasp of biology, and an excellent library of creationist cut and pastes.

Here's a quote from Niles Eldredge which I've used before ( you may say its somehow out of context...But evolutionary biologist make some pretty bold comments , when they seem to think that only their colleagues are privy to them...then they mysteriously seem to back track / circle the wagon...when those outside their narrow clique get wind of it...

Yes, that narrow clique of all the universities and colleges in the world, all the scientific journals and conferences, why, it's a virtual cabal I tell you!

Small matter, because Niles Eldrege's comments CANNOT be misconstrued ....its perfectly clear what he's saying here ... he might as well be saying that all of ' evolutionary biology/ Darwinism's on shakey grounds . He hopes that precepts of ' punctuated equibrium ' can salvage it, but that seems to be a FORLORN hope IMO [/quote] And dear readers, as I said, creationist love to quote proponents of punctuated equilibrium to try to characterize them as denying evolution, which they don't. You know perfectly well that Niles Eldredge accept the validity of evolutionary theory completely, and to try to say otherwise is, well, what would be a polite word for it? Oh yeah, LYING!

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Camanintx :

Did you come up with this yourself or are you cutting and pasting from somewhere?

No whatever isn't bracketed by quotation marks, or emboldened in green...as a quotation...I wrote

Might be paraphrased/ summarized from a variety of diverse sources ...BUT I wrote it...

 

[Autodidact]

Camanintx :

About the same time that you provide references that PROVE it's transitional ...

Maybe you're not familiar with the basic scientific principles at all? Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. And the evidence is very, very strong.

There is NO evidence that it's transitional species' between fish and four footed land creatures/ vertebrates NONE !

Ooh, this is fun. Let's all make unsupported assertions, shall we? There's LOTS of evidence that it's a transitional species between fish and land animals LOT'S!

talk about Tiktaalik being a ' transitonal' speces is just cheap talk / pure speculation...All this means is some ' so called' experts with a vested interest in finding ostensibly ' transitional' fossils....believe it LOOKS like a transitional species...Well SO WHAT ??? It's still ' technically a fish ' remember ?

If by so-called experts you mean the world's leading paleontologists specializing in this area then yes. This post demonstrates your ignorance. It's not about looks, it's about very specific shapes of bones.

A fish is NOT a transitional species between land and sea creatures. A fish IS A FISH....And this ancient ' fish' was 100 percent aquatic... ENDOFSTOREY !!!!

Really, how do you know?

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Yes, that narrow clique of all the universities and colleges in the world, all the scientific journals and conferences, why, it's a virtual cabal I tell you!

Mistakes often get reproduced in textbooks ad nauseam...Have you forgotten about Haeckel's Bogus theory of ' embryonic recapitulation' already ? That was misrepresented as ' indisputable' science fact, in literally hundreds of science text books, by renown ' experts' for more than a century . Despite it being based on fraudulent/ purposely squewed drawings as Haeckel himself admitted way back in the 1880's

Similarly, the presumed ' familial' relationship between Australopithecines and Man was misrepresented as ' science fact' by renown Anthropologists for decades...

Scientists lie/ misrepresent the truth,,,and even entire ' branches of science' have shown a propensity to do this...

WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD !

Not the fanciful / largely mythological world of an ostensibly objective science. Darwinists / evolutionary biologists as a whole... have NEVER been particularly objective when it comes their ' phylogenetic ' family trees/ their oft times blind support of Darwinian Dogma etcetera...

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

But that's not what's in red, is it? I already said that the photos were staged; the photos aren't data, they're illustration. What you said in red was that his data was doctored.

...his data WAS reportedly doctored...much like his photographs were staged...You can't sift through your data to make it fit your preconceptions ...reportedly, that's what Kettlewell DID...

Also the fact that his photos were ' faked' and that he initially tried to pass them off as ' natural' demonstrates in no uncertain terms that his Peppered moth study is Tainted / Cannot be trusted !

Furthermore, he didn't show evidence of ' Adaptive Mutations' so his study had no ' Darwinian' value in any case...

Natural Selection...YES...Adaptive Mutation....NO

There were NO adaptive mutations , pursuant to coal pollution...these were already pre-existing coloration genes...

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

person you claimed was a biologist was a newspaper reporter.

WOW...Have the police been called ? You will find many similar errors in many renown books by famous scientists ...Shyte happens...

I'd have to look back ...cause I can't even recall that guy's name off the top of my head...BUT ...I know which quote your talking about...If I erroneously called him a biologist , when he was in fact a reporter...so be it...

I've made mistakes in the past...and will do so again in the future...

BTW Congrats/ thank-you for pointing that out...( sincerely )...BUT still no need to get all high and mighty about it...It was quite unintentional

Have you never made a mistake ? Obviously ' all n sundry' here have...

CHEERS

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

And where, pray tell, was this "reported?" Was it by chance in a creationist website, famous for its inaccuracy?

No it was reported in Richard Lewontin's book ' It ain't necessarily so '

If by so-called experts you mean the world's leading paleontologists specializing in this area then yes. This post demonstrates your ignorance. It's not about looks, it's about very specific shapes of bones.

Yeah that's what they said about ' Austalopithecines' being a bonafide human ancestors, based on its physiology/ the shape of its bones etc....Now many of those same Anthropologists are furiously backtracking...

Nothing claimed about being ' Tiktaalik' a ' transitional species; is proven ( no matter what you say to the ' contrary') ...again its ALL just speculation...and the same could be said about each and every phylogenetic family tree ever devised by ' evolutionary biologists' ...

that's ONE reason they keep on revising said family trees ' ad nauseum'

I'm NOT going to keep arguing this point ad nauseum...because your insistent that claims about ' Tiktaalik' are beyond refute ARE COMPLETE NONSENSE !

 

[camanintx]

Camanintx :

No whatever isn't bracketed by quotation marks, or emboldened in green...as a quotation...I wrote

Might be paraphrased/ summarized from a variety of diverse sources ...BUT I wrote it...

Have you ever personally studied a fossil and attempted to determine what animal it came from?

 

[camanintx]

Yeah that's what they said about ' Austalopithecines' being a bonafide human ancestors, based on its physiology/ the shape of its bones etc....Now many of those same Anthropologists are furiously backtracking...

Seeing that all of the major paleontology centers (like MNSU, Humboldt Univ., The Smithsonian, and The National Academy of Sciences) still show Australopithecus as an ancestor of modern man, I would really like to know who these anthropologists you are referring to are. Can you provide any names?

Nothing claimed about being ' Tiktaalik' a ' transitional species; is proven ( no matter what you say to the ' contrary') ...again its ALL just speculation...and the same could be said about each and every phylogenetic family tree ever devised by ' evolutionary biologists' ...

that's ONE reason they keep on revising said family trees ' ad nauseum'

I'm NOT going to keep arguing this point ad nauseum...because your insistent that claims about ' Tiktaalik' are beyond refute ARE COMPLETE NONSENSE !

Sorry, but without some credentials or references, I would accept the opinion of the people who have actually studied Tiktaalik over yours any day.

 

[Autodidact]

Mistakes often get reproduced in textbooks ad nauseam...Have you forgotten about Haeckel's Bogus theory of ' embryonic recapitulation' already ? That was misrepresented as ' indisputable' science fact, in literally hundreds of science text books, by renown ' experts' for more than a century . Despite it being based on fraudulent/ purposely squewed drawings as Haeckel himself admitted way back in the 1880's

Similarly, the presumed ' familial' relationship between Australopithecines and Man was misrepresented as ' science fact' by renown Anthropologists for decades...

Scientists lie/ misrepresent the truth,,,and even entire ' branches of science' have shown a propensity to do this...

WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD !

Not the fanciful / largely mythological world of an ostensibly objective science. Darwinists / evolutionary biologists as a whole... have NEVER been particularly objective when it comes their ' phylogenetic ' family trees/ their oft times blind support of Darwinian Dogma etcetera...

Well, I've tried to convey this concept to you before: science is constantly correcting and improving its knowledge. It gets less and less wrong as it goes along. That is all science. Unlike creationism, which starts out wrong and stays wrong.

I see, so you're actually opposed to science itself. Well that explains a lot. How do you propose we go about learning about the natural world then?

 

[Autodidact]

...his data WAS reportedly doctored...much like his photographs were staged...You can't sift through your data to make it fit your preconceptions ...reportedly, that's what Kettlewell DID...

So you don't have a source for this scurrilous libel, yet you continue to repeat it. Hmm, what was that term for people who do things like this?

Also the fact that his photos were ' faked' and that he initially tried to pass them off as ' natural' demonstrates in no uncertain terms that his Peppered moth study is Tainted / Cannot be trusted !

First of all, no, it doesn't. They weren't faked; they were staged.

In any case, what difference does it make. As I have said several times, is there some reason we're not talking about the actual evidence? The theory of evolution doesn't rest on the peppered moth (although recent research confirms that they are a good example of evolution in action). Is it that you're not familiar with the actual evidence, or prefer to avoid it? Would you like to review the actual evidence? I'm busy, but will try to take the time to lay it out for you, if you want.

Furthermore, he didn't show evidence of ' Adaptive Mutations' so his study had no ' Darwinian' value in any case...

Then why did you bring it up?

Natural Selection...YES...Adaptive Mutation....NO

There were NO adaptive mutations , pursuant to coal pollution...these were already pre-existing coloration genes...

Yes, that's right. So why are you talking about it? It's so trivial. Well, not trivial, it's nice to see such a dramatic example of natural selection in action, but it doesn't tell us anything about mutations. It's just one more brick in the huge edifice of knowledge on the subject, consistent with all the other good work done in the last 150 years, thousands and thousands of studies, experiments, observations, all of them supporting ToE. But for some reason you only want to talk about this one very old one--why?

 

[Autodidact]

WOW...Have the police been called ? You will find many similar errors in many renown books by famous scientists ...Shyte happens...

I'd have to look back ...cause I can't even recall that guy's name off the top of my head...BUT ...I know which quote your talking about...If I erroneously called him a biologist , when he was in fact a reporter...so be it...

I've made mistakes in the past...and will do so again in the future...

BTW Congrats/ thank-you for pointing that out...( sincerely )...BUT still no need to get all high and mighty about it...It was quite unintentional

Have you never made a mistake ? Obviously ' all n sundry' here have...

CHEERS

There, see, it's not that hard to admit your mistakes. Now, are you ready to talk about the actual ToE?

 

[camanintx]

Camanintx :

About the same time that you provide references that PROVE it's transitional ...
There is NO evidence that it's a ' transitional species' between fish and four footed land creatures/ vertebrates NONE !

talk about Tiktaalik being a ' transitonal' speces is just cheap talk / pure speculation...All this means is some ' so called' experts with a vested interest in finding ostensibly ' transitional' fossils....believe it LOOKS like a transitional species...Well SO WHAT ??? It's still ' technically a fish ' remember ?

A fish is NOT a transitional species between land and sea creatures. A fish IS A FISH....And this ancient ' fish' was 100 percent aquatic... ENDOFSTOREY !!!!

You seem to have a poor understanding of what proof entails in a scientific sense. Scientists don't have to prove theories "beyond a reasonable doubt" like in a court of law. Science only has to prove that the theory explains all of the available evidence. Disproving a scientific theory is as simple as showing one case where the theory doesn't correspond with the available evidence.

Tiktaalik has features that are between a distinctly fish-like organism, Panderichthys, and the distinctly tetrapod-like organisms, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, which makes it a transitional species. Calling this speculation is not enough to discredit it, you must explain why it is not.

If you could reference just one study that says Tiktaalik is not a transitional form, you could disprove the claim of dozens of biologists but I seriously doubt you will find any such study.

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Autodidact:

( Kettlewell ) an eminent scientist...

Kettlewell an eminent scientist ?...DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH.!..He was a fraud...pure and simple...He purposefully ' staged' his moth photos ( using pins and glue )...Wilfully MISREPRESENTING ' DEAD ' speciments as 'LIVE' ones ...and later admitting to this !

Kettlewell's reputation is in tatters...and that's ALL...REPEAT ALL...his own doing ! The reason so many ' evolutionary biologists' are stuggling and FAILING to salvage Kettlewell's reputation...is that his ' TAINTED' Peppered Moth study, has been cited so often in textbooks

But again he didn't provide an example of an " adaptive mutation' as so many have ERRONESOULY claimed...Because...Both Dark and light peppered moths ' predate' coal pollution

Now the impact of coal pollution on the relative proportions of ' dark vs. light' moths may show evidence of ' Natural Selction/ survival of the fittest'

But even those who believe in ' purposeful/ intelligent' evolution ... ( aka those intellectuals who consider Darwinism/ neo-Darwinian explanations insufficent ) ...DO NOT deny the puissant power of Natural Selection...

They merely insist that Natural Section alone ( underpinned by purely random mutations ) does not ( and could never ) suffice to explaim MACRO-EVOLUTION...

 

[Autodidact]

So I take it then that you are not interested in discussing the actual evidence for the actual Theory of Evolution, none of which has yet been mentioned in this thread?

 

[jtartar]

Turnabout is fair play...So what have Darwinists ever said ( about biological evolution ? about species origins ? about abiogenesis ? about phylogenesis/ evolutionary ‘ family trees’ ? etcetera ) that is scientifically verifiable/ proven/ demonstrably true ????

I'll try to find the exact quote, but it seems to me that a scientist ( who was much critical of Darwinism / neo-Darwinism ) asked this very same question before an auditorium of fellow scientists. Reportedly, his colleagues offered no response ... Guess they. COULDN'T think of anything....

Surely, you staunch ( and oft times smug IMO ) defenders of Darwinian dogma can do better eh ?

Good luck with that

Hela,
Charles Darwin was completely right about one thing. Darwin said that if a complete record of evolution could not be found in the fossil record, his whole idea was wrong. Darwin even started to disbelieve hsi own theory before his death. Even though millions of fossils have been unearthed not one has the attributes of two different KINDS of animals. Never has a fossil been found where a scientists has said: I really can't tell what kind of an animal it is because it shows distinct characteristics of two different KINDS.
Science knows that there is a law that cannot be broken, either invivo or invitro; the law that says; Everything will ONLY reproduce after it's own kind, called PRESTABILISM. DNA will shortly be used to prove there has been no evolution from a lower to a higher form of life!!

 

[jtartar]

So I take it then that you are not interested in discussing the actual evidence for the actual Theory of Evolution, none of which has yet been mentioned in this thread?

Autodidact,
Consider just a few principles that make evolution impossible. 1. Everything reproduces ONLY after it's own kind!!! Scientists have tried millions of times, both invivo and invitro to cause anything to break this law. There have been many improbations because of their subterfuge!!! D N A will shortly prove this.
2. If evolution were true, after a period of millions of years, as evolutionists claim, there would be NO DISTINCT kinds, every kind would have the characteristics of both a lower KIND and a higher KIND. The evolutionists are still looking for the first HOPEFUL MONSTER, the link between even one KIND and another.
3. The odds against HOMOPLASY, the parallel evolution of a male and a female until mature, so they could reproduce. HOW REDICULOUS!!! How could they exist if not able to reproduce until full grown???
4. An amusing question is: If an animal evolves because of a need, why do we see both the lower and the higher form still in existence together?? Why no successional speciation???
The sheep and the giraffe are relatives. Do you believe that the sheep only was able to survive because it developed a short neck, while the giraffe was able to survive only because it developed a long neck???
5. The brain is called a multum inparvo. Why would man develope a brain capable of learning for thousands, maybe millions of lifetimes?? Do we really NEED it???
6. What about the EYE. Why would something develope an eye, when it does not even know anything about sight.
7. How could an animal, all of a sudden develope a conscience, the enjoyment of beauty, or beautiful music, altruism, all foreign to lower animals??? Language???

 

[Autodidact]

Hela,
Charles Darwin was completely right about one thing. Darwin said that if a complete record of evolution could not be found in the fossil record, his whole idea was wrong.

No, he didn't. Darwin never said this. Here's what he actually said:

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.

Darwin even started to disbelieve hsi own theory before his death.

No, he didn't. This is a lie. How do you think it affects the credibility of your position to tell lies in its support?

Even though millions of fossils have been unearthed not one has the attributes of two different KINDS of animals.

You don't know what you're talking about. This doesn't even make sense. Every fossil is the fossil of one kind of animal. However, every fossil ever found is of an animal that fits in a sequence between two other kinds of animals.

Never has a fossil been found where a scientists has said: I really can't tell what kind of an animal it is because it shows distinct characteristics of two different KINDS.

Oh really? Every fossil ever found has been positively identified? You're batting zero for accuracy here.

You do realize, do you not, that if what you describe were ever found, it would completely disprove the actual Theory of Evolution? (ToE)

Since our friend hela seems to have evaporated at merely the threat of discussing the actual evidence for the actual theory, are you perhaps interested?

Science knows that there is a law that cannot be broken, either invivo or invitro; the law that says; Everything will ONLY reproduce after it's own kind, called PRESTABILISM.

"Prestabilism?" Tell the truth, you just made that up, right? Please cite your scientific source for this balderdash. btw, can you define "kind?"

DNA will shortly be used to prove there has been no evolution from a lower to a higher form of life!!

Well let us know when that happens, will you? Meanwhile, we'll stick with the current theory, which has already been demonstrated to be correct.