Aug 152005
 

Dear Reader,

Do you think that people is not going to find out sooner or later the truth that lies behind the lies sold as a macroevolutionary ‘speciation‘?

Will evolutionism try to strip out the logic inferences and rights of “Intelligent Design” to do so also on this issue of variation as Harvard now attempts to do it with our claims of ‘Complexity‘?

“What do you think are the main weaknesses of evolution theories?”

And in:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/239

I posted:

We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems,” said David R. Liu.

My comment: Liu’s “mutual acknowledgment” is a “mutual acknowledgment” with those ‘heretic‘ “Intelligent Design” propositions that have been already “banned” from the mainstream science.

Do you wanna talk about an ‘uneven competition to survive’?

“”David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard [declared:] “my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.” ”

My comment: Do’u wanna talk about trying to confirm those long held beforehand Darwinian speculations and assumptions?

Isn’t Liu’s declaration of “events that could have taken place with no divine intervention” a completely religious stand and position?

By banishing any alternative the religions of agnosticism and atheism, through a naturalistically biased ‘science ‘, aim to control our culture and the thinking of our next generation. Is that O.K.?

 Posted by at 8:36 am

  2 Responses to “Variation and Genetic Compatibility vs. Darwinism”

  1. Of course it’s Ok when you approach issue from the possition of power.

  2. Here is my comment to your ARN thread “What do you think are the main weaknesses of evolution theories?”

    Originally posted by N.Wells:
    Biologists also use “Darwinian” as a label, ” also to continue to honor Charles Darwin for his seminal insights in seeing that all life was related and that species could evolve one to another

    Darwin saw the different species of finches as evidence for macroevolution. I wonder what he would have thought if he knew that they could interbreed?

    Originally posted by N.Wells:
    Hybridization doesn’t seem like a weakness.

    There is no weakness. Darwinism is unfalsifiable.

    Originally posted by N.Wells:
    Evolution permits speciation ranging from instant reproductive isolation by mutations that cause instant hybrid mortality, down to speciation by gradual accumulation of point mutations that only gradually build up to hybrid mortality.

    Yes, it can be one big poof or many small poofs.

    Originally posted by N.Wells:
    Thus it isn’t a surprise to find two sister species that live in different places and look different, but will mate if they live side by side. Hybrids may have the same reproduction statistics as the purebreds, less successful reproduction, or in some cases even better reproductive success, depending on circumstances.

    So they are different species that can interbred to produce offsprings that can also interbred with the parent species but they are different species. Hybrids have lower reproductive success or better reproductive success. Darwinian evolution will create novel species unless it is not a novel species, but the novel species that is not novel can also be novel. In short, Darwinian evolution can produce a novel species and not a novel species at the same time and in the same relationship. The Darwinian drivel tells us that stasis is evidence of Darwinian evolution and rapid morphological change is also evidence of Darwinian evolution. All roads lead to Darwinian evolution.

    Darwinists constantly boast about their mechanisms. The source of these mechanisms is random mutation. What are the specific evidence of these randomness that would produce stasis, rapid, instant and gradual evolution? Ask a Darwinists for empirical evidence and you get the tiresome misleading equivocation that we can’t demonstrate macroevolution in such a short time. Ask a Darwinists to explain the phenomenon of discrete morphological change then evolution is too fast to leave any evidence.

    [strong]Challenge:[/strong] If ME is the mechanism for the Origin of all the Species that have ever existed on Earth. If that is your claim then you should be able to empirically verify that claim. Theoretically I can take any organism from the past and turn it into an extant species, providing that I have access to the ancestral organism and I know what the alleged extant species is. The next best thing is what I have proposed in those examples. Find the closest living relatives and turn it into something that is close to the extant relative.

    For instance, let’s just start at the mammal level. According to the tree of life, there are 3 different extant mammal classes. Monotreme, Marsupial, and Eutheria. The eutherian mammals are supposedly derived from marsupials. In which case, you should be able to turn a marsupial into a placental mammal. How about one step down? Going back to what we had originally started with, a fox or wolf size terrestrial animal turning into a whale. This chain is obviously ambiguous because ME is ambiguous on this too. Let’s continue down to the Artiodactyla. How about turning a giraffe into a cow? They are both in the Ruminantia order and are sister families Giraffidae and Bovidae.

    Darwinian evolution is just one long bluff by Atheistic Darwinists.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.