Neo-Darwinism is National Disgrace

[nvxplorer]

Satan -- with the help of his little red-headed, mental-terrorist step-child (Chales Darwin)

You forgot to add "liberal commie pinko."

(Well, I stopped reading at that comment. I'm sure I'll see some reference to lberals as I finish the OP.)

 

[Elduran]

Well, I saw the thread title and thought "maybe this time supersport actually has a decent argument. Maybe he finally got his act together and decided to argue against the theory he opposes using facts and decent research. Maybe he'll prove he's not just a quote-miner railing against a well-evidenced theory because of his own pre-concieved notions about life"


Boy was I wrong for giving him the benefit of the doubt.

supersport: get a better set of arguments, you're currently your own worst enemy because of the complete lack of decent debate tactics!

 

[PanSapiens]

the possiblity of stealing someone's faith in the Almighty Creator.
That's how I get my jollies.

Leading people from light into the darkness.

Did you know that all Darwinists are also Satanic? It's true. It says so in the bible, but I forgot where.

 

[Skaloop]

Little is mentioned of where a spider got his intelligence to do this:

http://mon-ile.net/carnet/IMG/jpg/spider-web_08-09-2005.jpg

Actually, In Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins gives a wonderful and thorough explanation on how web-spinning evolved, entirely without any significant intelligence required on the part of the spider.

(I post this not for SuperSport, who will likely decry it, but for anyone else who might actually be interested.)

 

[supersport]

Post of the day, the week, possibly the month.

I am grinning like an idiot, it has really brightened up my day reading this, once I'd cleaned off the flecks of spittal that is.

Supersport: you are the reason I keep coming back to this site at the moment, you make me laugh.

I hope to god you're not a parody because reading stuff like yours makes me laugh, and it also makes me feel good about myself, and it also reinforces the idea that I was probably correct when I let my faith lapse.

I cannot imagine how many people you manage to deconvert with each one of your episodes of incontinence, but keep up the good work

Right back to my backlog of late term abortions

I agree.....not only am I am Intelligent but I'm funny too. I think I would not only be a good candidate for the Nobel Prize, but a great stand up comedian on Jay Leno.

 

[JohnR7]

Richard Dawkins gives a wonderful and thorough explanation on how web-spinning evolved

There is no evidence of evolution in the natural record though. The world's oldest orb web-spinning spider has been found perfectly preserved in an ancient piece of amber. The spider is between 115 and 121 million years old. In that amount of time the spider has not changed or evolved.

 

[Belk]

If you are going to be this paranoid maybe you should just get high. You will still be paranoid but it might calm you down a bit.

 

[nvxplorer]

I agree.....not only am I am Intelligent...

I agree, too. You're on a par with the spider.

"Oh what a web you weave."

 

[MrGoodBytes]

There is no evidence of evolution in the natural record though. The world's oldest orb web-spinning spider has been found perfectly preserved in an ancient piece of amber. The spider is between 115 and 121 million years old. In that amount of time the spider has not changed or evolved.

Actually, the oldest known spider fossil is dated at 380 million years, and it's quite a bit different from modern spiders.

For details, see http://www.earthlife.net/chelicerata/web-evolve.html

 

[supersport]

Actually, the oldest known spider fossil is dated at 380 million years, and it's quite a bit different from modern spiders.

For details, see http://www.earthlife.net/chelicerata/web-evolve.html

I'm not going to read that whole thing...but were spiders unable to spin webs back then?

 

[Skaloop]

There is no evidence of evolution in the natural record though. The world's oldest orb web-spinning spider has been found perfectly preserved in an ancient piece of amber. The spider is between 115 and 121 million years old. In that amount of time the spider has not changed or evolved.

Silk production is rather common among arthropods, and spiders came in around 400 million years ago. That leaves well over 250 million years to evolve the web-spinning capabilities; that's more than enough time.

And could you please cite evidence that spiders have not changed or evolved since that time? Because I found a few articles/links about the discovery you mention; not a one of them suggests that spiders have not evolved since.

The evidence of the evolution of the web is evidenced by the different forms and styles of web use, from simple to complex. There are also different methods of producing and distributing silk.

 

[Mincus]

All evolutionists can say is that the web-spinning spider and the sonar-using dolphin both had an imaginary common ancestor -- which supposedly possessed these abilities.

Yes, I propose it was a hominid composed of straw.

Debating them is pointless.

So why are you here?

 

[moogoob]

I'm not going to read that whole thing...but were spiders unable to spin webs back then?

Lmao... I mean that in the non-ironic sense. Reading does one good.

Time for me to go lead more people from god... despite the fact I believe in one... what am I supposed to do? Quick, someone hand me a copy of the Atheistic Darwinist Conspiracy Handbook. It should be between our copies of the Official Sodomite Agenda and Marx's Communist Manifesto.

 

[mark kennedy]

I accidentally double posted so I am deleting the previous and putting some cool images in it's place:

The Human Genome Project

I think these would make great black light posters!​

 

[mark kennedy]

Slow your roll there sport, lets talk about this a little.

Neo-darwinism is truly a National disgrace. I do not say this as a cheap attempt at an insult. I say it with all honesty. Satan -- with the help of his little red-headed, mental-terrorist step-child (Chales Darwin) -- has turned this great nation upside-down. A small percentage of atheistic intelligence bandits have somehow managed to manipulate their way into the hearts and minds of the general population.

Darwin's On the Origin of Species was very popular as a time when biology was just starting to become an independant science. Not a lot was known and a lot of what was known was wrong but Darwin wrote a book on biology that the average person could read and understand.

I'm not entirely sure what you think neodarwinism is so I'm going to give you a couple of links and quotes in the hopes of expanding the discussion:

Dobzhansky's ability to combine genetics and natural history attracted many other biologists to join him in the effort to find a unified explanation of how evolution happens. Their combined work, known as "The Modern Synthesis," brought together genetics, paleontology, systematics, and many other sciences into one powerful explanation of evolution, showing how mutations and natural selection could produce large-scale evolutionary change. The Modern Synthesis certainly did not bring the study of evolution to an end, but it became the foundation for future research. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/history_20

Neodarwinism was a failed attempt to blend Darwinism and Mendelian genetics. Genetics produced two laws of inheritance and was moving the scientific world toward the discovery of DNA. Darwinian natural selection was never able to produce anything but a proposed common anceostor for everything. The reason the were blended was because common ancestory continues to be popular but devoid of any real scientific merit.

And this has been done though large-scale, mind-numbing, brainwashing techniques that have convinced a large portion ofAmerica that dumb creatures have evolved into intelligent ones. They have succeeded in convincing many that a tricycle can evolve into the space shuttle through blind and purposeless mutations guided by the mere notion that animals actually breed and have offspring. They have dumbed-down

That's because people don't take the time to learn basic biology. It has absolutly nothing to do with Darwinian natural history or real evolution as it has been observed and demonstrated in the natural world. They have made the Theory of Evolution a take it or leave it proposition. They would have you think that if you don't believe in a single common ancestor model then you have rejected modern biology. Evolution is defined as the change of alleles in populations over time, which just means living things change. The head game is to blend Darwinism with real science and creationist can't seem to get a handle on that so they reject evolution. There is no need for that, biology is not the problem it's the answer.

society to the point where many people actually believe this stuff....people actually believe that the only differences between sweaty, bug-picking monkeys and humans are long arms and opposable thumbs. They think the difference between a hippo and a dolphin is just a series of random mutations that reshape the body. Little gets mentioned about how and where a dolphin's sonar came from. Little is mentioned of where a spider got his intelligence to do this:

That is because people don't realize that the human brain is three times the size of a chimpanzee. They have no clue just how much would have had to happen for that evolutionary trend to work. Thumbs are not an issue, people without hands can form and use tools, heck I know a blind guy who was a computer programer. If you learn the biology Darwin because irrelevant.

http://mon-ile.net/carnet/IMG/jpg/spider-web_08-09-2005.jpg

All evolutionists can say is that the web-spinning spider and the sonar-using dolphin both had an imaginary common ancestor -- which supposedly possessed these abilities.

Did you know that Darwin thought whales descended from bears? He did:

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.​

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_leviathan.html

But the reality is, evolution as darwinists define it is genetically impossible. The follwing quote is from "Genetic Entropy" by Dr. J.C. Sanford:

The reality of biology is that selection acts on the level of the organism, not on the level of the nucleotide. Genes never exist in "pools", they only exist in massive clusters. Each nucleotide exists intimately associated with all the other nucleotides, and they are only selected or rejected as a set of 6 billion. No nucleotide is EVER inherited independently. Each nucleotide is intimately connected to its surrounding nucleotides and they only exist and have meaning in the context of other nucleotides. We now know that human nucleotides exist in large linked clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to a million. These linkage blcoks are inherited as a single unit, and never break apart. This totally negates one of the most fundamental assumptions of the theorists -- that each nucleotide can be viewed as an individually selectable unit. Natural selection can never create, or even maintain, specific nucleotide sequences.

This is exactly how that works, I like the graphic so I would throw it in because I wanted to illustrate what you are trying to say, this is how the nucleotides are translated into amino acids which become proteins:

This is the mechanism that Darwinians would have you believe is responsible for creating the diversity of life that fills the world from bacteria and fauna:

And this evidently is something that has been known for a long time -- at least since 1970 when Kimura proclaimed the same exact thing. But yet, the charade of lies continues. The massive brain-washing of society continues like a boulder rolling quickly down a hill. Cumulative selection is still invoked as the mechanism that turned a monkey into a man over at TalkOrigins....and the same mantra is being repeated and defended here daily.

What they desperatly don't want you to know is that evolution has nothing to do with men evolving from apes. It is the Theory of Evolution applied to natural history that is creating the problem, biology does not do that. Science is about what is here and now and with enough evidence in close proximity to the event it can make judgements about historical events. The problem is that we are taking evolution as a whole or rejecting it as a whole, that is what is so dangerous about Darwinism it has buried itself so deep in real science it's hard to get it out.

Yet, somehow evolutionists have convinced themselves that whole organs have somehow accidently pieced themselves together one nucleotide at a time -- regardless of the fact that fully-formed organisms, with no-doubt fully-formed organs appeared abruptly in the fossil record. But all it takes for them, evidently, is to wave the magic evolutionary wand to make it all happen in their mind. Who cares if there's no scientific method to make this hocus-pocus fairytale come true....as long as they can still hear the faint death rattle in the morals of decaying society, then all is well.

"The ease with which information theory applies to molecular biology has created confusion about the type of information that DNA and proteins possess. Sequences of nucleotide bases in DNA, or amino acids in a protein, are highly improbable and thus have large information-carrying capacities. But, like meaningful sentences or lines of computer code, genes and proteins are also specified with respect to function. Just as the meaning of a sentence depends upon the specific arrangement of the letters in a sentence, so too does the function of a gene sequence depend upon the specific arrangement of the nucleotide bases in a gene. Thus, molecular biologists beginning with Crick equated information not only with complexity but also with “specificity,” where “specificity” or “specified” has meant “necessary to function” (Crick 1958:144, 153; Sarkar, 1996:191)."

The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories Stephen C. Meyer

And look at the eye. A simple 12 pixel image has 500 million possible connections. How can a series of mistakes account for this?....But the human eye has 126 Megapixels. How can blind accidents accomplish the staggering formation of such an organ? And the truth is there is no evolutionary mechanism that allows mutations to occur again and again in just the right place -- over and over and over until an organ is formed. This is an impossible myth, especially when you consider how many places a mutation can occur....there are BILLIONS of nucleotide locations that would have to be accidentally mutated at just the right time and place.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Dawin has an elaborate explanation how this could have happened gradually. Talk Origins has a suprisingly straight forward article on this, they don't really comment on it just print the quote in context. It's really good to see how this kind of evolution is different from Mendelian genetics, Mendel showed how changes happen relativly quickly (in a couple of generations) without really changing the genotype. You might want to give it a look:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

If you are interested in how this is different from Mendels laws of inheritance just let me know.

But you know what? I don't think these people believe 95% of what they say. But then again neither did Satan in the Garden of Eden. In fact, deception is a consciously purposeful act. Likewise, I am convinced that the atheist activists who frequent Christian forums like this have no other purpose than pure deception. They love nothing more than the emotional high that comes from the possiblity of stealing someone's faith in the Almighty Creator. There's no other explanation.These are the same people who see nothing wrong with puncturing the skull of a beautiful unborn child via late-term abortion. Debating them is pointless.

It's interesting to note that apes never learn how to lie, even though they can be taught to communicate through sign language. Lying is actually a creative exercise which is actually an interesting but dubious distinction that seperates us from apes.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[dawiyd]

Neo-darwinism is truly a National disgrace. I do not say this as a cheap attempt at an insult. I say it with all honesty. Satan -- with the help of his little red-headed, mental-terrorist step-child (Charles Darwin) -- has turned this great nation upside-down. A small percentage of atheistic intelligence bandits have somehow managed to manipulate their way into the hearts and minds of the general population.

Yeah, thats right it's all part of the

 

[mark kennedy]

Could someone report the second post, I don't know how but somehow the post got in there twice. I don't have a report button for my own posts so I can't do it. Just report the first one please, I must have hit the post button twice or something.

Edited to add:

Nevermind, I just added some pics so it really doesn't matter now.

 

[dawiyd]

Could someone report the second post, I don't know how but somehow the post got in there twice. I don't have a report button for my own posts so I can't do it. Just report the first one please, I must have hit the post button twice or something.

Just edit it, and cut out the context.

 

[Chalnoth]

The reason the were blended was because common ancestory continues to be popular but devoid of any real scientific merit.

Oh, really. Like the lack of ERV's? That's about as solid of evidence as you can get. Talkorigins has a lot more on the subject, too:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

...including things like transitional forms, and a nested hierarchy of morphological characteristics.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just edit it, and cut out the context.

Good idea, I just put some jpgs in its place so the post isn't totally worthless.