100 things which evolutionites hate

I can notice that dogs really learn more than tricks, they also learn the mischievous behavior of their owners.

When you manipulate words in order to make me appear saying something that I never said, your credibility is at risk.

Others, (who are not the same old same old posters here) can check that you are just inventing scenarios about me, and that you yourself are making the icon besides the name "farmerman" as a not trustable poster.

Look, war is ugly, but this is not war, this is a place to discuss ideas, not so to impose them over the rest.

Play the game clean, don't become like the others whom by "nature" are nasty since birth.

You were doing right...

No, the New Testament isn't translated from the original Hebrew. And translations according to the religious denomination's preferences would mean there are different editions.

Not so, the concept of Neo Darwinian theory of EVOLUTION, retained ALL of Darwins thinking plu added the concept of evolutionary and embryological development.
Hardly "recycling". You have an agenda, I do not. I could be just as happy with a non Darwinian base of knowledge. Its just not so.

A theiry is an xplanation for a phenomenon (or related phenomena) herein ALL the facts fit the theory and no facts REFUTE it.
It as simple as that.
Darwin's theory is as strong as ever, Your feeble attempts at the contrary are based upon no evidence or data. Please be less a pedant and engage more in actual evidence

Not so, the concept of Neo Darwinian theory of EVOLUTION, retained ALL of Darwins thinking plu added the concept of evolutionary and embryological development.
Hardly "recycling". You have an agenda, I do not. I could be just as happy with a non Darwinian base of knowledge. Its just not so.

A theiry is an xplanation for a phenomenon (or related phenomena) herein ALL the facts fit the theory and no facts REFUTE it.
It as simple as that.
Darwin's theory is as strong as ever, Your feeble attempts at the contrary are based upon no evidence or data. Please be less a pedant and engage more in actual evidence .

I say rather that science had "adopted" genetics to develop an actual METHOD by which natural selection is accomplished . REMEMBER, one of the key focuses of DARWIN's ...ORIGIN
s... is that the incremental changes that affect organisms through time-ARE HERITABLE. (Genetics is merely a methodology by which we can explain the heritability and embryological development of organisms).

Your attempt at creating some kind of "scientific conspiracy" is funny. It seems that youre trying to poke at anything that sticks out.
By your mind we should be more demanding to question "WHY didn't Darwin consider using information from the structure of the human and neanderthl's genomes" in his "Descent of Man"?

You are partially crret in that Darwin was wrestling with heritability as one of the kkeystones of his thory. He had come up ith his own ideas and most were dead wrong. Darwin thought that heritability was fractional (ie-each heritable trait was "watered down" in effectiveness in each generation until at about the 7th generation an effect was dilutd about 1200 times). This was on of the huge blunders of Darwin's theoretical foundation. It wasn't until the 1940's that the entire reinforcing mechanisms of heritable gens was understood well enough to give Darwin's thwory a MECHANISM for heritability.

Its not that anyone "rejected or ignored" genetics, its that science grows more savvy with time.

oes the Bible anywhere mention even heritability mechanisms? (I don't know I just wonder)

Your criticisms in previous page for adopting nd publishing "new findings" seems to be a shortcoming of volutionary thory according to you(or are you taking refuge in poor language skills). NOTHING forbids a theory from developing new or modifying existing components. Its the way almost all science has proceeded .

If you don't want to recognize the new understandings that genetics and genomics has added to Darwin's theory, that's because youre a bit of a luddite.


I suspect that the "100 things...? page that gunga posted has some "home team relevance " to you.


Youre hypothesis of a "recycled earth is kind of interesting" Can you share some of your evidence of this?

In geology we say that" the present is key to the past" and as we learn more and more we find that "Catastrophies" seem to happen in cyclic occurrences. Yet the "recycling" concept ould seem to say that there was another cycle of life that occurred that has since been wiped from the record? Is that your point?