De constructing Darwinism

Wow, there was so much error and just baldfaced lying that I now know that you reside entirely in a world of alternate facts.

Darwin Never had an idea of how old the earth was.The age f the earth was independently measured by hundreds of techniques that mutually ( and coincidentally) supported each other.

He missed the entire point of nat selection qnd its vidence. He got dmned close by referring to the "Why hqsnt q beer turned into a hale"?

How about''Evidence clearly hows that a brown bear evolved into q "maritime " bear, the polar bear

His glasses were about s big a pir s Ive ever seen.

Here's what Wikipedia says about Milton in its thumbnail bio of him.

His books, especially those on scientific controversies, have been roundly rejected. To his critics Milton is a contrarian who engages in controversy for its own sake, while to his supporters he is a writer unafraid to tackle uncomfortable subjects and orthodoxies that have become dogmas. Milton is shunned in the field of evolution as he is a neo-Lamarckian who has supported the experiments of Paul Kammerer.[5]
The Facts of Life was met with intense criticism from many mainstream academic reviewers. Reviewing it in the New Statesman, Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins described it as "twaddle that betrays, on almost every page, complete and total pig-ignorance of the subject at hand".[6]
Milton's claims have been criticized as pseudoscience by philosophy professor Robert Carroll.[7] Milton appeared on The Mysterious Origins of Man, a television special arguing that mankind has lived on the Earth for tens of millions of years, and that mainstream scientists have suppressed supporting evidence.[8]

Kind of interesting. Milton claims the earth is 175000 years old, but he supports the claim of nother bunch wackqdoos that mqn hqs lived on the planet for 10's of millions of years.

See any conflict there gunga?

Milton mentions a dating method for the Earth which produces a rough guestimate of 300,000 years which is surprisingly ballpark for the 700,000 I get just substituting the outside radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains nito the standard 24-hour clock model which says that dinosaurs appear around 10:45.

Milton is so fulla **** because he really has no idea of where he is fulla ****. He has no clue that there are about 25 different radioisotope measurement techniques each with limitations and application arenas.Then, on top of that, there are another tens of methods of strqtigrqphic dqting tht are not based on radioqctive decay
All are calibrated against 3 scientifically measurable phenoms
,including numbers of disintegrations pr second of a radionuclide and the radioisotope content of meteorites. Theres a really good take on the full accuracy of radiometric dating by Dr Roger Wiems (He is a practicing radioisotope dating scientist and is a Christian who is personally embarrassed by these guys like Milton who attempt to Speak for "Practicing scientists who are also Christians"

As far as other dating techniques that are NOT based on radioisotopes, yeh no ****. Thats really what much of the science of geology was based on. We use electron spin resonance, remnant magnetism, seismic remnants,stimulated luminescence,thermoluminescence, gravity stripes, dissolved salt rings, volcanic ash layers qnd mid oceanic "stripes".We use stratigraphic quartz means, and the well known LAW OF SUPERPOSITION.(Theres quite a few more but Im sure you rememberfrom past discussions)

Trust me, Milton has no idea of what he speaks. Hed be fun to discuss his "ideas" in front of a bunch of second year geochemistry or stratigraphy students and some isotope specialists. (Theyd chew him up and spit im out). Hes a moron with a Youtube page. He hqd a net opening graphic but listening to him he hqd no idea where to even connect his opinions.

THIS YEARS "Darwin Days " (2 day)celebration of his birthday focused on the story of HMS Beagle, the variora texts of "On the ORIGIN..." the notables in the crew of HMS Beagle, and the latest discussions of whatever the Intelligent Design community is trying to foist.

It turns out that Darwin was gifted of a sense of humor that we'd find fairly entertaining.

Any of the other historical super assholes and villains have their own day? Attila the Hun? Tamerlane? An Lushan? Muhammad (M.H.B.H.)??

"Atilla the Hun" day sounds like an awesome holiday. Ride to work on a horse while pillaging the steppes on the way.

Anytime someone lumps such a broad species as something significant to discus dates, I know what they are saying is bullshit.

From when the first dinosaur to the last, millions of years went by. They are found in different layers. You can't talk about 700,000 when their span alone was several millions.

You don't carbon date rocks. Dinosaur bones are not bone, instead they date the rocks around the bones since they had sediment and bits of elements like cesium and uranium. Both can be checked for the quantity of material that has chemically decomposed. As well as plant material.

youd have to make little meat patties to laybeneath the pony:s hide blankey. Thats how we got STEAK TARTARE.

I had a Catholic teacher (a nun) who e called Sister Attila

weve been trying to get a "teaching moment " with the gunga for, lemme see, WOW, its gonnq be 15 years now. I think that
1 either his agenda is to dismiss sciencces (ALL SCIENCES)

2Hes obtuse and ineducable


Pick one gunga.

If he disagrees with you, he will call you some rude name and then ignore you. I think Ive been on ignore for several years (At least since the lqst time he got a "time out"

We tried explaining the old 40K/ 40Ar/40 Ca versus C14 radioisotope dating till we became blue in the face. He will probably post some of his BS C14 dates of dinosaur bones soon. So stand back so ya dont get slimed.

Is this one of those threads for people whose IQ is less that their waist size in inches?

The assumption which the heavy metal dating schemes make is that the heavy metals have been laying around on or near the planet's surface for four billion years. That's plainly idiotic since any heavy metals present when the planet was created would have quickly sunk to the planet's core.

And the people who tell us that the planet is 4B years old are the same cretins who try to go on telling us that dinosaurs died out 65,000,000 years ago.

WOW, as far as I know, neither Potassium, Argon, or Carbon will form complexes with dithizone (Duffus' means of detn what is a "heavyMetal") yes, Duffus is his name but he can teach you a few things about radiochemitry. I really wish ta hell youd go somewhere else when making these rather dumb "science"statements gunga, y make the rest of us look like were hqving a conversation or a discussion among peers, when actually were scolding you for not listening to your HS chem teacher, biology teacher, and physics teacher
.

A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:

========================================

The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?

Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

Actually, its not "proof" at all. Proof is usually reserved for mathemtics.
We gther "vidence", nd when whole batches of evidence support a conclusion, we loosely hold on to that conclusion qnd see ht other evidence supports it. NOONE does anything in science to anyones "Satisfaction", thats the beginning of hubris.
Well, the news is, ALL THE EVIDENCE (so fr) SUPPORTS EVOLUTION BY NTURAL SELECTION

AND

NO EVIDENCE REFUTES IT.

Hows it goin for your Alley OOp crowd.
you do know that Pictogrqphs arent evidence of anything other thn how good the artistic skill of the pictographer was.

The really funny thing is that gunga actually is convinced with that "Minimal List of Bullshit" that he posts every few months.

The latest tools of editing genes have allowed the reviit of bird/lizrd embryos (laws still are not clear re: ltting "bucket evolution" actully tke place .

The fields of genomics and proteomics has allowed us to better understnd mathematically the folding of proteins and thus projecting how they may generate Point Accepted mutations as visualized by M Dayhoff.

Gunga is still worried about the research that was being done in the 1930's and 40's. Evolutionary Science is now looking at the molecular level . And th field sciences are seeing evolutionary cladistic trees of living species of plants and animals.

If e notice one thing about the gungs of the world, they re trying thir damndest to poke holes in science and evolution theory . So fr no good for that tqck. I dont know why they dont look toward the positive qnd try to develop reserch thqt supports their assertions. Discovery Institute promised they would be writing huge masses of scientific ppaers qbout Intelligent Design (This was back in 1999 qlmowt 20 yers qgo).
So fr its been silent. I think their biggest shot at fame was the Dover Pq trial.

Now, ll they hqve is stupid assertions, no vidence, funny posters, really grat grphics of nothing of substance and silly campfire stories about "Stegosaurs in the Lake Huron shores"

Chuck Darwin himself said that if anybody could ever demonstrate a single feature of a living creature which could not conceivably have arisen step-wise via mutations with each step representing some sort of an advantage over the previous, than his theory would crash and burn.
There is more than one choice for such a feature but,of all the things which could never possibly evolve, my pick for #1 is flight feathers.

Consider feathers, which come in more than one form. Down feathers serve for insulation and are not that much different from hair or fur. An evolutionist could talk about fur mutating into down feathers and not sound totally stupid. But flight feathers are so totally different from down feathers that you'd need TWO mutations to get to them i.e. one mutation to get from fur to down feathers and then another to get from down feathers to flight feathers.



Flight feathers involve a complex system of barbules and hooks as the image shows to create the strength needed to bear weight. Down feathers don't have any of that stuff.

Flight feathers are asymmetric (one side shorter than other) and they pivot so as to open and let air pass through on upstrokes and close again on down-strokes and the short side is the locking side.

The question is, what kind of a mutation would cause down feathers to mutate into flight feathers ONLY ON THE CREATURE'S ARMS where they will be needed after other mutations turn those arms into wings??

Evolutionism basically amounts to a belief in magic. Flight feathers are one of the most easily grasped instances of this, but there are others which are just as bad.

two words Gene Expression.
We can create baby dinobirds in the labs by using gene editing nd restoring fossil gene to its "on "position. Tadaaa , baby birds with faces and teeth.(They still dont let em live they are sacrificed shortly before hatching--bioethics of Star Trek's prime directive sorta)
You should read about the similicaudipteryx a Jurassic Oviraptor (It liked eggs for breakfast). The feather expressions varied from young to old birds do today (downy chicks qnd quill shaped adult feathers).

I guess you never got the memo about gene expression.

There may have been a therapod-2-bird step but, if there was, it amounted to re-engineering and not evolution.

Likewise the taxonomic charts which are generally taken as proof of evolution(ism) are actually evidence of object-oriented design and subc lassing...