Is Darwinism still fact after Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29?

[gnomon]

Troll much?

Can I quote your post in a certain "situation"?

 

[tas8831]

Can I quote your post in a certain "situation"?

Depends on the situation

 

[gnostic]

I think that is right, evolution is both an observed fact (we've seen it happen) and a theory of how it happens. I'm not sure what "Darwinism" is, though. It is term thrown, widely thrown around, that seems to mean different things to different people. I suppose we call the theory of evolution by natural selection Darwinian evolution.

Agreed.

Darwin never referred to Natural Selection as “Darwinism” or “Darwinian Evolution”. Apart from his authorship, he never applied his name as the “title” to any book he wrote.

 

[exchemist]

Agreed.

Darwin never referred to Natural Selection as “Darwinism” or “Darwinian Evolution”. Apart from his authorship, he never applied his name as the “title” to any book he wrote.

Quite. I also dislike the suffix "-ism", as I feel it is a way of demeaning the theory to being merely one of a number of alternative schools of thought (cf. Keynesianism, Marxism) rather than, as it is and has been for about a century, a universally accepted fundamental theory of biology. The people that speak of Darwin-"ism" almost invariably have set out to diminish it in this way.

 

[Shad]

Why genetics have pointed to Y-Chromosomal Adam, who lived 100 000 years ago, and not to his monkey ancestors?

Evolution is on a large scale. It isn't monkey, monkey, human rapid generational changes. You seem to have no idea what evolution is nor the time scale involved.

 

[Shad]

Irrelevant to my point. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution thus are attacking a strawman solely created by your own ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is violation of Presumption of Innocence, and making the Presumption of Guilt.

No. It's a conclusion of guilt after it has been sufficiently justified and tested.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You wish!

No. "wishing" is your department.
What he stated was fact. Never before in history has there been so much evidence in support of evolution theory as today. Which is logical, since the evidence simply piles on day after day, and has been doing so ever since darwin revolutionized the field.

How can there be the very first humans in history, if they came out monkeys?

"How can there be the very first spanish speaking in history, if they came out of lain speakers"?

No way. Monkeys give birth to monkeys, not to the Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve.

"No way. Latin speakers raise latin speakers, not spanish or italian speakers!"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why genetics have pointed to Y-Chromosomal Adam, who lived 100 000 years ago, and not to his monkey ancestors?

Do you think for some reason that Y-chromosome adam somehow means that our genetics don't extend beyond him?

You seem to be of the ridiculous opinion that Y-chromosome adam didn't have any parents. Or Y-chromosome peers, for that matter.