Darwin said that paleontology would prove or disprove his theory, he seems to have been confident that a thumbs up or down would be possible when the science of paleontology would be blooming, which it was beginning to at his time, and now, a hundred and fifty years later, I'm sure Darwin would be very disappointed in the prospects for his theory, which obviously should merely be called hypothesis.

Troll

Did you know that Darwin said that?

troll.

Do you agree that Darwin would be very disappointed, or do you think he'd be tickled pink with "all that evidence?"

He would be fucking delighted to see how all biology is now centered upon his glorious theory.

You didn't answer the question.

Yes, I did. I just didn't give the answer you were angling for.

Do you agree that Darwin would be very disappointed, or do you think he'd be tickled pink with "all that evidence?"

I disagree. I think Darwin would be delighted to see all that evidence.

Yaaaawn.....:rolleyes:

This is one dumb thread.

And yet, here you are.

Unfortunately.

So, we can conclude that the title of this thread is wrong.

Darwin would be utterly delighted.

close thread.

But no evidence has been produced (though some has been manufactured), so why would he be delighted, if not deluded?

No evidence? I think you are the deluded one here.

Darwin said that paleontology would prove or disprove his theory, he seems to have been confident that a thumbs up or down would be possible when the science of paleontology would be blooming, which it was beginning to at his time, and now, a hundred and fifty years later, I'm sure Darwin would be very disappointed in the prospects for his theory, which obviously should merely be called hypothesis.

Ice Age, even though my views go against the mainstream, I always offer some kind of real evidence. What is your evidence?

The evidence for evolution includes species of animals that are close enough to breed, that even have different chromosome counts, that can breed and have long-lived offspring, but that aren't close enough to produce consistently fertile offspring. Donkeys and horses are a very good example as they are obviously different species and their interfertility proves that they are quite closely related. This means that they have somehow speciated. Both species are highly successful in any somewhat compatible environment, so they are both viable species.

Some people here would like to hear any real evidence or any evidence at all for your side of the story.

Why has nobody banned iceage?

Cos this aint a "serious science" forum.

That's right it's "serious" science if you agree, and it's not if you don't, according to the "enlightened" Darwinite accolytes.

Whatever. Cheer up, we'll all go to hell and you can watch us from heaven.

Not all of you will go to hell.

I mean us unbelievers.

MetaKron, since so-called species can interbreed, does that seem like a good classification to you?

Unbelievers today, maybe not tomorrow, you never know.

Darwin said that paleontology would prove or disprove his theory, he seems to have been confident that a thumbs up or down would be possible when the science of paleontology would be blooming, which it was beginning to at his time, and now, a hundred and fifty years later, I'm sure Darwin would be very disappointed in the prospects for his theory, which obviously should merely be called hypothesis.

Please explain why, what would Darwin have been dissapointed in? Specifially?

Thats true. I wonder what it takes to convert to Islam....

Just ask the spirit of Allah to come into you heart, then see what happens.

Darwin would be extremely disappointed that there are no supposed transition fossils between syngameons of animals, and no indication that syngameons are morphing into new ones.

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/psychology/Psychology/flashman.gif

MetaKron, since so-called species can interbreed, does that seem like a good classification to you?

Any standard, definition, or classification system is bound to have exceptions. Sygameons are rare. With few exceptions, species are groups of animals that do not, in nature, breed with each other. Besides, the whole focus of your argument is a red herring. Maybe species is ultimately a meaningless term, but that does not have any effect on the basic principles that govern evolution.

The only reason distinct species do occur is that breeding keeps the gene pool somewhat uniform. If all animals were members of a syngameon, there would be little diversity in the animal world, which is the opposite of what actually exists.

Darwin would be extremely disappointed that there are no supposed transition fossils between syngameons of animals, and no indication that syngameons are morphing into new ones.

Morphing? FFS read a book.

But Darwinism says that all animals came from a common ancestor, that would be one syngameon, ha ha.

If not morhping, then what is it?

Darwin would be extremely disappointed that there are no supposed transition fossils between syngameons of animals, and no indication that syngameons are morphing into new ones.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html

Why do you say those are transitional?

You read that pretty fast.

As if talk origins isn't used by Darwinites incessantly in lieu of cogent statements?

As if talk origins isn't used by Darwinites incessantly in lieu of cogent statements?

You are quite right. And they use peer-reviewed journals in the same cheating fashion.

Peer reviewed by Darwinites though.

it's a conspiracy I tell you.

So you say.

Darwinites were sent by Satan.

it's written in the stars. Which are written down in the Holy Bible. Which is Written by God.

Yes, it is written in the stars too that spurious monkey will soon be a Christian, I read it last night.

As if talk origins isn't used by Darwinites incessantly in lieu of cogent statements?

It's not a subject that can be easily distilled into sound bites.

Here's a bunch of actual fossils that lead to Homo sapiens sapiens (modern). (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html)

Yes, it is written in the stars too that spurious monkey will soon be a Christian, I read it last night.

Blasphemy YOU SATANIST!!!

I AM A CHRISTIAN!"

"Natural selection does occur within the respective animal kinds, but only because of genetic loss ("speciation"), not because of genetic enhancement (Darwinian evolution)."

- IAC

Explanations of evolution which destroys IAC's theory:

"However, evolution does not work like that. What happens is that mutations transfer entire domains and stretches of sequence around; or random insertions form completely novel domains and folds. These changes can have 1) a negative effect (somewhat likely), in which case they are selected against; 2) neutral effect (most likely), in which case they will remain in the genome to be acted upon further; 3) positive effect (unlikely in the first iteration), in which case they are selected for.

The most frequent case, therefore, will be: protein has changed, there are all these disordered loops or extra helices, barrels, sheets, whatever - but it still works. Activity may be affected, but not sufficiently to make a large difference.

What happens then? Small mutations will affect these new domains and alter their specificities. Again, there is a reason why so much of the biochemistry follows similar paths and similar reactions. The protein folds are similar. Evolution relies on taking something that already exists, and altering it slightly, to produce a novel effect. The cumulative effect over a long period of time can be staggering - as directed evolution experiments have shown, and as observed evolution in the last century has shown."

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb05.html#run



"How frustrating do you think that can get? Constantly encountering people who have barely spent any time studying the issue you have studied in great detail, and then telling you that you are completely wrong? Not only are you wrong, you are believing something that is so obviously impossible, any fourth grader can see the impossibility! And then, to top it off, they give you arguments that are incorrect in out of themselves?

You want me to see the impossibility of evolution? I once lost six months of work because a bacterum evolved a new protein, and I didn't catch it immediately. I use evolution-based bioinformatics programs as a part of my daily job; they provide correct results, something they couldn't do if the theory they are based on wasn't sound. Two weeks ago I attended a seminar on how cancer cells develop resistance to chemoterapy drugs by evolving specific pumps that pump the drug out from the cell. Yesterday I've been catching up with new developments in HIV therapies, which is a constant race to outpace the staggeringly swift evolution of the virus. And this is just a barest scratch on the surface - I could go on for days."

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar05.html

Then why do so many biologists see Darwinism as just a quaint hypothesis?

Then why do so many biologists see Darwinism as just a quaint hypothesis?

Only in your imagination.

Hey spur, what makes you think you're a Christian?

I love Jesus. I have been baptized. I did my communion. Technically I am on my way to heaven.

Unlike you who has been tempted by the devil to join a pagan cult of some kind of protestants.

IAC, I really think you should get over with this sexual attraction to Darwin and move with the rest of us into the 21st century.

I'm not sexually attracted to dead people, what do you see in it?

Paleoanthropology is in the strange situation of being a "science" in which most of its workers do not have access to the material upon which their "science" is based.

I guess rocket scientists are handicapped by not having access to space?

funny enough, this is a screenshot of my desktop this morning:
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h52/The_Devil_Inside_666/darwindesktop.jpg

Darwin would be disappointed to see his face being distorted by a semi-belgian.

Handsome devil.

Not as handsome as this devil:

http://www.iceagecivilizations.com/art/Jim70x95.jpg

I don't think so.

Is that image copyright?

Mine of Darwinski?

That's the wiki where they use copyright protection. Here you can do whatever, except death threats.

James R has a copyrighted image as an avatar for instance.

So can I use it for my avatar......?

Bozo the Clown is not copyrighted.

So can I use it for my avatar......?

Dunno. Ronnie didn't like it when I did that.

But then again, TDI is using my copyrighted manboob-man image.

If IceAgeCivilization ever finds a woman stupid enough to allow him to penetrate her and he has a child will the baby be:

A- Retarded?

B- Dull?

C- A borderline imbecile?

D- A moron?

E- Braindead?

F- An infant forever?

Dunno. Ronnie didn't like it when I did that.

But then again, TDI is using my copyrighted manboob-man image.

i suppose i could just use your real picture.
ha!

If IceAgeCivilization ever finds a woman stupid enough to allow him to penetrate her and he has a child will the baby be:

A- Retarded?

B- Dull?

C- A borderline imbecile?

D- A moron?

E- Braindead?

F- An infant forever?


His child could be a genius, you never know.

Yes, it is written in the stars too that spurious monkey will soon be a Christian, I read it last night.

jesus---!!!

how did he know!!!