Peppered Hares — An Emerging Evolutionary Icon

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nice post. And I like your questioning.

Evolution by mutation and adaptation is unfounded. It is still conjecture until proven.

In the year 2018 it is still unproven, lacking supportive evidence. Evolution is still conjecture based.

Again: why do you continually lie about stuff like this?

 

[Heissonear]

Though I am sure this will fall of deaf ears...

Where do you suppose those 'variants' came from?



Why does that not count as "new information"? If creationists are going to declare that changes in gene regulation do not count as changes in 'information', then your definitions are useless and subjective.



Please explain how the situation was misrepresented. In your own words.


What do you think the 'peppered moth icon' IS? Because it seems like you don't know, and that you are just falling for the DI's misrepresentations of it.


Did they rule out aliens? Did they rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Did they rule out Satan?

When Jonny Wells wrote about centrioles being little turbines - did he rule out evolution?

See how foolish such an "argument" is?


I would like to see if Majerus used the phrases “proof of evolution” and “helping hand from on high”. I suspect he did not.

And why hasn't Wells - or ANY other IDcreationist with a real doctorate, done any actual research on ID creationism?

Why does ALL of their scholarship consist entirely of trying to poke holes in evolution?

I suspect because it is fear - fear that if they actually look into their religious fantasies like a scientist, they will find that their beliefs are foundationless.



Such a witty ending! Wow, you must have gone to the Klinghoffer school of smarm!

Oh wait - you just plagiarized.

In fact, you plagiarized a BUNCH - and I suspect you've done this totally dishonest action in all of your threads.

Merely having a link at the end doesn't cut it - you present these OPs as your own work.

The dishonesty of Christian creationists on here sickens me.

Reported.

You still do not see the big picture of how fleshly men followed naturalistic principles in the 1700's and 1800's and proposed past life was by Naturalism. No God needed path.

What occurred from this was that people made science an Idol within them. And walked by such Idol to understand the World around them.

Now, in 2018 people are still finding error in Evolution, and missing evidence - showing evolution is based on conjecture.

But those who have become bias in upbringing and learning try to support Evolution as a fact.

 

[Heissonear]

Let me see if I got this straight.

Some scientists see a hare turn white when it snows in winter, but stays brown if it doesn't snow.

So they retcon this thing back to Darwin and elevate it to the status of "icon of evolution"?

It only looks good on paper.

The chameleon has the snowshoe hare beat in spades; and the caterpillar has them both tore up.

As we know, becoming deceived by darkness in this world many have fallen thereby. The result - blindness. Eyes that see, but see deception. Idolizing Science and producing Naturalism has overcome many.

What we want to see is those who become open to Jesus and forsake the Idols in their heart, and deception they have fallen prey to.

May God bless. And may many posting learn to overcome the wicked one.

Many need to wake up to how Science has become an Idol they follow within them, and have not yet to overcome the wicked one. Two grave errors they must deal with with a pure heart. Pure motives.

Evolution is based on conjecture, as the OP presents. People need to earnestly deal with it.

 

[tas8831]

Nice post. And I like your questioning.

Evolution by mutation and adaptation is unfounded. It is still conjecture until proven.

In the year 2018 it is still unproven, lacking supportive evidence. Evolution is still conjecture based.

I will ignore for now the lies that you posted (yes, I consider them lies for you have claimed a great knowledge of the relevant facts, and as such, these repeated claims can only be lies), and simply ask how, as you present yourself as a great paleontologist and fossil expert, you had the time to examine the millions of fossils you implied you had done in another thread.

 

[tas8831]

You still do not see the big picture of how fleshly men followed naturalistic principles in the 1700's and 1800's and proposed past life was by Naturalism. No God needed path.

What occurred from this was that people made science an Idol within them. And walked by such Idol to understand the World around them.

Now, in 2018 people are still finding error in Evolution, and missing evidence - showing evolution is based on conjecture.

But those who have become bias [sic] in upbringing and learning try to support Evolution as a fact.

A rather long-winded and off-topic way of admitting that you are ignorant of the topic that you replied to.

 

[tas8831]

AND...... He's OFF to start yet another spam-trolling thread without finishing up getting humiliated in a previous thread!


Sad...

Though I am sure this will fall of deaf ears...

Where do you suppose those 'variants' came from?



Why does that not count as "new information"? If creationists are going to declare that changes in gene regulation do not count as changes in 'information', then your definitions are useless and subjective.



Please explain how the situation was misrepresented. In your own words.


What do you think the 'peppered moth icon' IS? Because it seems like you don't know, and that you are just falling for the DI's misrepresentations of it.


Did they rule out aliens? Did they rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Did they rule out Satan?

When Jonny Wells wrote about centrioles being little turbines - did he rule out evolution?

See how foolish such an "argument" is?


I would like to see if Majerus used the phrases “proof of evolution” and “helping hand from on high”. I suspect he did not.

And why hasn't Wells - or ANY other IDcreationist with a real doctorate, done any actual research on ID creationism?

Why does ALL of their scholarship consist entirely of trying to poke holes in evolution?

I suspect because it is fear - fear that if they actually look into their religious fantasies like a scientist, they will find that their beliefs are foundationless.



Such a witty ending! Wow, you must have gone to the Klinghoffer school of smarm!

Oh wait - you just plagiarized.

In fact, you plagiarized a BUNCH - and I suspect you've done this totally dishonest action in all of your threads.

Merely having a link at the end doesn't cut it - you present these OPs as your own work.

The dishonesty of Christian creationists on here sickens me.

Reported.

 

[Anguspure]

Nice post. And I like your questioning.

Evolution by mutation and adaptation is unfounded. It is still conjecture until proven.

In the year 2018 it is still unproven, lacking supportive evidence. Evolution is still conjecture based.

To save any more accusations of plagarism (although I have no doubt that the hekklers will continue nevertheless), please take note that the content posted is from the article behind the link in the OP. Any credit is attributable to the author of the article.

 

[tas8831]

To save any more accusations of plagarism (although I have no doubt that the hekklers [sic] will continue nevertheless), please take note that the content posted is from the article behind the link in the OP. Any credit is attributable to the author of the article.

You could avoid plagiarism by simply not copy-pasting parts of the article and not indicating that you had done so.

Not so hard when one is honest.

 

[USincognito]

It would be nice if the folks at the Disco Toot would realize they cannot just coin a pithy phrase like "peppered hares" and claim it's an "icon" of evolution. Given how Wells' book has been addressed, torn apart and debunked over the years, I'm surprised they even think the stupid "Icon" shtick is worth using.

 

[tas8831]

It would be nice if the folks at the Disco Toot would realize they cannot just coin a pithy phrase like "peppered hares" and claim it's an "icon" of evolution. Given how Wells' book has been addressed, torn apart and debunked over the years, I'm surprised they even think the stupid "Icon" shtick is worth using.

Given that they are still supporting the obvious lies/incompetence/deception of Sarfati and Menton re: their claim that a bone-to-bone connection is required for a critter to walk on land, I suspect that they still like the 'icons' thing because that is how they are. Better to be seen as a loyal 'Christian' at the expense of their integrity than to be honest and have their fellow YEC cultists look down on them.