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

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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?

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

...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]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

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]