What Have Darwinists Said That's True? (Abiogenesis, evolution, genesis, atheist)

[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]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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