Darwin's Evolution Has Failed

Darwinism has failed:

"My main criticism of Darwinism is that it fails in its initial objective, which is to explain the origin of species. I mean it fails to explain the emergence of organisms, the specific forms during evolution like algae and ferns and flowering plants, corals, starfish, crabs, fish, birds. What it does provide is a partial theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small- scale adaptive changes in organisms). The large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the foundation of biological classification systems seem to require a principle other than natural selection operating on small variations, some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be without significant support. Some other process is responsible for the emergent properties of life, those distinctive features that separate one group of organisms from another, such as fishes and amphibians, worms and insects, horsetails and grasses."

Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor of Biology, Open University, UK

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwinism has failed:

"My main criticism of Darwinism is that it fails in its initial objective, which is to explain the origin of species. I mean it fails to explain the emergence of organisms, the specific forms during evolution like algae and ferns and flowering plants, corals, starfish, crabs, fish, birds. What it does provide is a partial theory of a ...[text shortened]... , horsetails and grasses."

Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor of Biology, Open University, UK

Gee, here we are again with you trying your pathetic best to weaponize science to suit your own sick agenda.

It doesn't matter how many times we tell you, you INSIST on the origin of life to be part and parcel of evolution.

It is not and never will be until science unravels that great mystery.

And be assured of this: They WILL unravel that particular mystery and it won't be 'godidit'.

When they figure out that mystery, only then will the origin of life be part of evolution. The cycle will be complete and then the search will be for life on other worlds since we by that time will know what hints to examine that will lead to the conclusion that life exists on such and such a planet or moon.

My opinion (admittedly could be totally bogus) is we will find life underground on Mars and several outer moons in our own system.

If that is proven to be the case, it would be a HUGE indicator that life exists everywhere in the universe where it is given half a chance of succeeding.

And you don't have to tell me that is all science fiction, OF COURSE IT IS.

It is also in the realm of the possible so I am free to speculate in that direction until proven otherwise.

If I am proven wrong in that speculation, I have the ability to change my perspective, unlike you who will continue on your one trick pony life even if life is discovered on Mars and little green men come down from the Andromeda Galaxy.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Gee, here we are again with you trying your pathetic best to weaponize science to suit your own sick agenda.

It doesn't matter how many times we tell you, you INSIST on the origin of life to be part and parcel of evolution.

It is not and never will be until science unravels that great mystery.

And be assured of this: They WILL unravel that particu ...[text shortened]... ife even if life is discovered on Mars and little green men come down from the Andromeda Galaxy.

You appatently did not get that he said Darwinian evolution only provides a partial theory of adaptation (small- scale adaptive changes in organisms).

it does not provide a principle or process that accounts for the large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the foundation of biological classification systems.

This is what I have been trying to tell you all the time. I already know that you guys want to dismiss the origin of life, but Darwin's book had the origin of species in the title. It doesn't cover the origin of species either.

The quote is taken out of context and partially fabricated.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The quote is taken out of context and partially fabricated.

Sure the quote is taken out of context, but it does not matter, for I saw no reason to quote everything. How is it fabricated? It is exactly as quoted.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sure the quote is taken out of context, but it does not matter, for I saw no reason to quote everything. How is it fabricated? It is exactly as quoted.

He is clearly a respected scientist but controversial. Just because he says what he says is not an indication he is a creationist and the fact that you clearly think his views support creationism does not fly. For you maybe, but all he is really saying is we need to dig deeper into evolution to find what is going on and that going on is not going to include micromanaging from some god or other.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Darwinism has failed:

"My main criticism of Darwinism is that it fails in its initial objective, which is to explain the origin of species. I mean it fails to explain the emergence of organisms, the specific forms during evolution like algae and ferns and flowering plants, corals, starfish, crabs, fish, birds. What it does provide is a partial theory of a ...[text shortened]... , horsetails and grasses."

Professor Brian Goodwin, Professor of Biology, Open University, UK

The only failure in evolution has been your not evolving a brain.

Originally posted by RJHinds
How is it fabricated? It is exactly as quoted.

It doesn't match what is found here:
http://www.sciencegroup.org.uk/ifgene/goodwin.htm
So either what you posted, or what is on that site, is wrong.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sure the quote is taken out of context, but it does not matter, for I saw no reason to quote everything. How is it fabricated? It is exactly as quoted.

It would certainly help if you cited your source, so we could see for ourselves.

Originally posted by forkedknight
It would certainly help if you cited your source, so we could see for ourselves.

Don't hold your breath. And be careful what you ask for because he may just give yet another link to one of the vast stream of total crap in the form of extremely stupid creationist propaganda videos (apart from his own delusional mind, this seems to be his main "source" after all! ) that none of us watch here even though he forever delusionally thinks we do actually still bother to waste our time watching them (else why does he give such links? ) even though we've seen that total stupid crap before and know we have better things to do with our time.
If I was you, I would postfix that with "P.S. ABSOLUTELY NO creationist videos please! "

Originally posted by forkedknight
It would certainly help if you cited your source, so we could see for ourselves.

When I quote my sources most of you guys don't pay any attention to them as Mr. humy says or you get confused by all the added information. So in this case I wanted to point out specific ideas and not confuse the issue with non-essential garbage.

Richard Dawkins: Darwinism has failed

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
When I quote my sources most of you guys don't pay any attention to them as Mr. humy says or you get confused by all the added information. So in this case I wanted to point out specific ideas and not confuse the issue with non-essential garbage.

Richard Dawkins: Darwinism has failed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g10suBDVE4Y

The bottom line in all this is Goodwin was not endorsing creationism. He was asking for more basic fundamental science to understand evolution better, not to knock it out of the park in some creationist victory dance.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The bottom line in all this is Goodwin was not endorsing creationism. He was asking for more basic fundamental science to understand evolution better, not to knock it out of the park in some creationist victory dance.

It's interesting when a YECreationist who doesn't know anything about evolution thinks he has found something remarkable against evolution, when he in fact only found that not all evolution biologist think exactly the same thing.

If a YECreationist meet another YECreationist not agreeing in details, the other one is posessed by Satan. You have to have exactly the same views. That's why there are so many denominations in the religious community.

Originally posted by RJHinds
When I quote my sources most of you guys don't pay any attention to them as Mr. humy says or you get confused by all the added information. So in this case I wanted to point out specific ideas and not confuse the issue with non-essential garbage.

Richard Dawkins: Darwinism has failed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g10suBDVE4Y

Well, thanks for wasting my time. Your supposed quote doesn't appear in that video at all. Next time I will ask for a minute marker when you say you're citing a source that is made up.

Also, I like the part of that video where they say: "All branches of science concerned with the subject: <giant list of branches of science> have produced countless proofs demolishing the theory of evolution" and we're going to explain none of them.

YouTube#t=287

Sounds like your practice of not citing sources is well accepted in your circles.

The "quote" from the OP, as it reads in the actual citation that twhitehead posted, is actually multiple quotes, picked apart and the pieced together in a way that makes it appear to kind of support your argument, i.e. fabricated.

"Darwin's Evolution Has Failed..."

RJ forgot the rest of the title:

"...to convince delutionists like myself who choose to remain stupid."