Science Disproves Evolution

[Hellbound]

I see.

Not interested in discussion. Well enough.

 

[Simon39759]

Repeating it doesn't make it true. A eukaryotic cell is a colony of bacteria.

Hell, you can even reject that part an think the theory, and Dawkins, are wrong... Still, trying to make it sound like Dawkins does not differentiate between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cell is just silly...


On an unrelated note, the elephant bodies, probably do, in fact contain billions of bacterial cell.
I am not familiar with elephant physiology, but, in fact, in the human bodies, the number of cells in the bacterial flora do, in fact outnumber the number of human cells by a factor of 10.
As I said, I am not elephant doctor, but it seems quite likely that the elephant bodies does, in fact, contain trillions of bacterial cells...

So, while this is not what Dawkins was referring to (he explicitly stated that each eukaryotic cell was a colony of bacterial cell), that statement too would have been correct...

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Elephants eat a lot of cellulose so they need a lot of bacteria in their gut. Baby elephants have a nasty way of getting their first does of bacteria in to their gut.

 

[ben m]

Transpositions provides no new information.
Duplication provides no new information.
Removal provides no new information.

Yes they do. How is it possible to get this wrong? Do you just assume that every biologist, bioengineer, computer scientist, and mathematician since 1961 was a complete idiot? Anyway, you can test this yourself.

Create a text file, containing exactly the string "the russians are coming the russians are coming the russians are coming". Create another text file which differs from this by a transposition: "the rusare comsians ing the russians are coming the russians are coming"

Try to compress both files. Compression algorithms are basically measurements of how much different information is in a file. The original string compresses (gzip) to 53 bytes. The transposed string compresses to 59 bytes. Transposition = more information.

Again: try it yourself. You don't need to trust me on this (I might be a leftist for all you know!). Write your own compression software (Zip and Gzip were written by a Frenchman; Gzip was popularized by a sort of left-libertarian atheist). But facts are facts, sir.

 

[Simon39759]

Fortunately we have men like Wilbur and Orville Wright, who overturned the science of Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, when he said only 8 years earlier, "Heavier than air flight by humans is impossible.

Amusingly enough, that too is a bit of a myth.
While the abrupt statement is profusely quoted, including by the newspaper of the time, it seems like it was a paraphrase of Kelvin's general trust of idea. Indeed, several somewhat successful attempts had taken place before the Wright brothers' flight. And, obviously, Kelvin would have been aware of the existence of birds...

I have not the smallest molecule of faith in aerial navigation other than ballooning or of the expectation of good results from any of the trials we hear of ... I would not care to be a member of the Aeronautical Society."

"The air-ship, on the plan of those built by Santos-Dumont, is a delusion and a snare. A gas balloon, paddled around by oars, is an old idea, and can never be of any practical use. Some day, no doubt, some one will invent a flying machine that one will be able to navigate without having to have a balloon attachment. But the day is a long way off when we shall see human beings soaring around like birds."

They never will be able to use dirigible balloons as a means of conveying passengers from place to place. There never was and never can be any commercial value to any such affair. It is all a delusion and a snare. Santos-Dumont is a very bright young man, but an air ship as planned by him is not practicable.

(emphasis added)


So, in context, Kelvin seems to have been mostly talking about the short-term practical implication of air travel, especially in regard to some kind of proto-zeppelin.
Certainly, these statements were not proven wrong by the Wright brothers' clumsy, short-distance flight. Tremendous a step as it was, it was but a mere shadowing of the commercial air flights that Kelvin was talking about and he never did state that it was, actually, impossible, just a long way away.

I do suspect that Kelvin would have been shocked by the rapidity of the development of air technology but no, he did not dismiss it out of hand...

 

[Sideroxylon]

Here are just a few of your mistakes.

1. MY "story" is really quite irrelevant to neo-Darwinism. Science must stand, or fall, on its own. While it is often the case that an old theory, such as the Caloric Theory of Heat, falls to a newer one, viz. Molecular Motion, it is not necessary.

2. Neo-Darwinism is compelling in a variety of ways. It is plausible.
But so too were many other theories, such as the Steady State Universe.
Very troubling was the reaction of Albert Einstein and the entire scientific community, when Catholic Priest George LeMaitre proposed the Primordial Atom, which we now call the Big Bang.

Einsteiin's reaction, that of rejecting God, was identical to the reactions of Darwinists - deny, deny, deny. Einstein had an ax to grind. I suspect that you do as well.



What a cheap shot that was. I divulged Albert Einstein's inexcusable bias against science, and you call that "cheap rhetoric." I point out Darwin's hateful racism, and you denigrate ME, pretending to be enlightened yourself.
What cheap rhetoric you display.





Show one link to any post I have made citing "holy books." Just one.
You see, you engage in the cheapest of cheap rhetoric - lies.

Now as to evolution, please explain the mechanism for the synthesis of human hemoglobin. State the number of amino acids in the alpha and the beta chains. Tell readers how many amino acids are used in this sequence, and state the probability of producing this formulation from random mutation, followed by natural selection.







There is SO "no controversy" that National Geographic magazine featured a "missing link" a few years ago on its cover. It was, like so many other "missing links," a fraud, but hey, to Darwinists, frauds are "no controversy."

And the smooth transition of millions of fossils.... nowhere to be found.
They were promised, but new finds almost always create bigger gaps instead of filling them in.

I am reminded of the words of a prominent Darwinist when a fossil supposed to be transitional between land based mammals and the whales was claimed to be "the most beautiful a Darwinist could hope for."

What does this transition to a whale look like? A crocodile.

You managed to thoroughly miss every point. Maybe its me though. So are you a young earth creationist? I assume you are since you deny evolution.

To save any further confusion, could you answer my first original request, which was:

Why not tell us exactly what you believe, evolution deniers never seem to spell that out.

Then having done that please tell me how it does a better job of explaining life as we have observed it from fossils to DNA than the evolution story does.

 

[Tubbythin]

You're mixing lightning and polypeptides. Let's get back to living systems, shall we?

"There is a plausible path to get there" is hardly science.

Yes it is. Its not a theory of everything but its certainly science.

Shall we simply invoke your "plausible path" to every problem in science?

How shall we cure pneumonia? Is there such a thing as an antibiotic?

"There is a plausible path to get there."

Well, all right then! Problem solved!

Pneumonia kills people. Therefore not having an antibiotic does not solve the problem.

To calculate the number of ways 20 amino acids can be arranged in a sequence 264 amino acids long, multiply 20 x 20 x 20 x 20 x 20.... a total of 264 times. Call it 10 to the 343rd power. And remember, there are only 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe, to give you some perspective of large numbers.

Erm, you know this how? The big bang cosmology is consistent with an infinite universe. There might be ~10⁸⁰ particles in the visible universe but what fraction of the total universe is the visible universe?

 

[Dancing David]

If you were really interested in learning, you would read this and other books of a similar nature, which run counter to your dogma.

.

If you were interested in doing more than presenting an incoherent argument, then you could try to present a coherent one.

 

[Tubbythin]

2. Neo-Darwinism is compelling in a variety of ways. It is plausible.
But so too were many other theories, such as the Steady State Universe.
Very troubling was the reaction of Albert Einstein and the entire scientific community, when Catholic Priest George LeMaitre proposed the Primordial Atom, which we now call the Big Bang.

Not true. LeMaitre's work was preceeded by Friedmann's work (who was not a catholic priest). So the idea that the entire scientific community rejected it is nonesense and has nothing to do with the fact LeMaitre was a catholic priest.

Einsteiin's reaction, that of rejecting God, was identical to the reactions of Darwinists - deny, deny, deny. Einstein had an ax to grind. I suspect that you do as well.

Again, this is nonesense. Einstein did not reject God, he rejected the notion of a finite (temporally) universe. When Hubble's observations showed an expanding Universe he changed his mind. Why? Because Einstein was an excellent scientist and not a religious fundamentalist.

What a cheap shot that was. I divulged Albert Einstein's inexcusable bias against science, and you call that "cheap rhetoric."

You did no such thing. You made an unsupported assertion that Einstein rejecting the Big Bang because he wanted to reject God. You neglected completely to mention that Einstein changed his mind when the evidence showed him the error of his ways.

I point out Darwin's hateful racism, and you denigrate ME, pretending to be enlightened yourself.
What cheap rhetoric you display.

No you didn't.

There is SO "no controversy" that National Geographic magazine featured a "missing link" a few years ago on its cover. It was, like so many other "missing links," a fraud, but hey, to Darwinists, frauds are "no controversy."

Hehehehehehe. The National Geographic?! That it?

And the smooth transition of millions of fossils.... nowhere to be found.
They were promised, but new finds almost always create bigger gaps instead of filling them in.

Who on Earth promised you that?The only way there'd be a smooth transition of millions of fossils would be if a God or Gods had put them there.
]

 

[Pahu]

Acquired Characteristics


Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:

“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences5.html#wp1008764]

 

[I Am The Scum]

Acquired Characteristics

With this post, you are, at best, demonstrating that people who have believed in evolution have occasionally gotten some facts wrong. Was that the ultimate goal of this post? I'm asking because this seems like a fairly bland conclusion to prove.

 

[Marduk]

Thats very nice pahu, but were all still waiting for you to answer the numerous questions youve been asked already. Starting off on another subject you know nothing about which you have no intention of answering questions on is a big waste of time

so can we go back to my question on transitional fossils that you still havent answered
it was a very simple question
I'll even paraphrase for you
Q. why does Brown claim that no transitional fossils exist when museums are full of them ?

answer this please, or I'll start another thread which shows you for what you are.

 

[Tubbythin]

Acquired Characteristics


Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:

“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences5.html#wp1008764]

How many different fora have you posted this on Pahu?

FAO a competent biologist/historian, wasn't Lamarckism the theory that evolution replaced? Consequently isn't it entirely unremarkable that, at some point in his life Darwin may have thought Lamarckism to be a valid theory?

 

[Tubbythin]

A more inane question than that I cannot recall.

No more inane than the post it was responding to.

 

[Pahu]

Thats very nice pahu, but were all still waiting for you to answer the numerous questions youve been asked already. Starting off on another subject you know nothing about which you have no intention of answering questions on is a big waste of time

so can we go back to my question on transitional fossils that you still havent answered
it was a very simple question
I'll even paraphrase for you
Q. why does Brown claim that no transitional fossils exist when museums are full of them ?

Why do you believe museums are full of transitional fossils?


In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.]

If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to “several” superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences—“more than enough” (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these “superb examples” were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation—not unheard of among evolutionists—would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]

In spite of the agreement among many prominent evolutionist leaders that the fossil record does little to provide evidence of evolutionary transition, the likes of Mark Isaak somehow feel justified in declaring that, “Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils ... there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist.”

What a complete contradiction to both the above leading evolutionists’ own words, and the actual fossil record itself! If Isaak’s claims were true, why would the leading authorities of evolutionary thought so plainly disagree with this “spokesperson”?

Isaak even goes so far as to claim that, “notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.” Yet these same alleged “transitional sequences” remain no less equivocal and transitory (i.e., subject to continual dispute and re-evaluation among the “experts”) than any other. Isaak declares them “notable examples,” apparently based on his personal confidence more than on any tangible, empirical data.

One well-documented treatment of this subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation) may be found in Dr. Duane Gish’s recently updated book:

- Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN 0-89051-112-8

Isaak, on the other hand, directs us to the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive for “proof” of transitional fossils. A careful perusal of this source is well worthwhile, as it exemplifies the methods used by evolutionary “spokespersons” to defend their beliefs by blurring the line between dogma and science, touting so much theoretical speculation as if it were unequivocal, empirical data, so as to convince any willing disciple that they can’t possibly be wrong.

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Darwin's cladogram was blank. Not one tip, not the base, nothing was labelled..

Today, you can look up the most sophisticated cladogram ever produced. The branches remain blank, all the way down to the base..

Uh no. And BTW the "tips" as you call them had been labeled by Linneaus a couple generations prior to Darwin.

I must put you on ignore. Discussions with you are clearly impossible.

Thank you.

 

[catsmate]

Acquired Characteristics


Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:

“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al., “Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al., “Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences5.html#wp1008764]

Why is it that after your previous dishonest, quote mined, rubbish is exposed you fail to apologise for, or even acknowledge, your errors but merely post more?

 

[Tubbythin]

All principles are basic.
If is is so simple, then why do Darwinists relentlessly engage in personal attacks, calling others "stupid" and "flat earthers"?

Because the people they are calling stupid are, in general, stupid I would imagine. For instance, a large number of them use the term "Darwinist" as a pejorative term to describe them. Many are also seen to post out of context quotes that supposedly support there position when, in context the quotes clearly do not. Sometime the quotes are complete fabrications. Many are hypocrites. Many make "scientific" claims that are completely unsupported by science, often in fields of science they haven't got even the faintest clue about.
All of these traits can be seen in this very thread and give a clear indication of why "Darwinists" believe these other people to be stupid.

 

[Marduk]

Why do you believe museums are full of transitional fossils?

Because I have eyes which I have taken to museums and observed things

and to answer the rest of your post dump

please explain how this does not support evolution

All these skulls show the transition between Australopithecus africanus, and Homo Sapiens Sapiens


perhaps you could tell me which of these represents Homo Erectus as well, because if you can't it would show that you have never studied the subject you are claiming isnt true


There is little point you carrying on with your quote mining approach as it has already been shown to be from a deceitful source (i.e. brown) on several occaisons, lets try visual evidence from now on shall we, if you need help to post pictures just ask

Finally, everyone here knows that Brown is a hopeless creotard, stop using him as a source for your entire intellect, I'm quite sure the vast majority of posters here are much more interested in what you know, than what Brown doesn't

 

[Tubbythin]

You are terribly misinformed. You confuse "creationist" with having legitimate doubts about the 150 year old theory first formally posited by Charles Darwin, long before we knew the profound complexity of life.

What is the relevance of the theory being 150 years old?

You pretend that YOU have all the answers, and anyone who does not march in lockstep with you is an ignoramus, a victim of "propaganda."

This is completely false. In fact it is completely evident that "we" know we don't have all the answers. Remember your silly rant about pneumonia when somebody dared to say we don't know everything but we have ideas. (I realise this followed this post). You can't have it both ways.

This is the identical hateful and condescending tactic taken by global warming fearmongers, bent on controlling everyone else. It is anti-scientific and it is shameful.

What are you talking about? Climatologists use computer modelling with real-world data to predict the outcomes of various different plausible scenarios. They then put forward estimates of various things based on these numbers. It couldn't be more apparent that they don't think they know everything. Read an IPCC report. The things are full of caveats.

Sorry but you do exactly that. Not only with Darwin, but also with Al Gore.
tsk, tsk

What are you talking about? What does AL GOre have to do with evolution?