Proof Darwin was wrong

http://darwinconspiracy.com/

This'll keep you busy.

Originally posted by josephw
http://darwinconspiracy.com/

This'll keep you busy.

they should present this on the news any day now

groundbreaking. extraordinary science

i considered posting the above words(btw, they are sarcastic) without checking the site first. but then i thought that in the spirit of science, i should at least look at it. well it proved a waste of 10 seconds of my life.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
they should present this on the news any day now

groundbreaking. extraordinary science

i considered posting the above words(btw, they are sarcastic) without checking the site first. but then i thought that in the spirit of science, i should at least look at it. well it proved a waste of 10 seconds of my life.

I am curious. I had to read for more than just ten seconds.

Could you quote the sentence that you read in the first tens seconds that convinced you that it was a waste of time.

Darwin wasn't wrong. He was early. He was a prophet.

Originally posted by jaywill
I am curious. I had to read for more than just ten seconds.

Could you quote the sentence that you read in the first [b]tens seconds that convinced you that it was a waste of time.[/b]

The statement "evolution is missing a mathematical formula" as a reason for why it's wrong is a start.

Plus the other "fatal flaws" that are just retreads of the same old already debunked non-flaws in the theory of evolution for a start.

Those of us who know these fallacious arguments can spot them within a good 10 seconds.

Originally posted by jaywill
I am curious. I had to read for more than just ten seconds.

Could you quote the sentence that you read in the first [b]tens seconds that convinced you that it was a waste of time.[/b]

"On this website we reveal three fatal flaws in the Theory of Evolution that conclusively prove Darwin was wrong."

No matter how flawed Darwin could be, the flaws ain't gonna be fatal.

And that was within 5 seconds, my friend.

If you are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and they all are wrong about God"?

Oh, you mean, like religions tend to do with other religions?

Originally posted by josephw
http://darwinconspiracy.com/

This'll keep you busy.

Not really. These are all the patent lies that have been exposed before.

No. 1. Not true. Neither Cell Theory, Germ Theory nor Atomic Theory have mathimatical descriptions, yet we remein very sure that we are made of cells, that diseases are caused by germs (and viruses) and that everything is made of atoms. Perhaps you disagree with my statements, or will you concede that the web-site is lying?

No. 2. The genome, as I'm sure you well know, is 95% non-coding DNA (also known as "Junk DNA"😉. Much if this is non-functional repeats of genes which do work, but have minor alterations which prevent them from coding. Often, it is precisely this type of DNA which mutates, resulting in a new, functional gene, which confers a new ability. However, overall, nowadays, life is very complex, as is the geneone. We should not expect new genes to arrive frequently, which they don't. However, this isn't to say it never happens. A neat experiment I recently read about, whiich studied E.coli evolution over many generations, and could compare the DNA sequences between generations showed that around generation 33,100 of the experiment the E. coli suddenly began to metabolise the citrate in the culture media. E. coli cannot do this. It lacks the gene to break citrate down. Since the system was sterile, no genes could have leaked in from elsewhere, it must have been the result of a new gene.
http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php

No.3 What the...?! Has this guy never heard of parental care? Or R and K reproductive strategies? I suggest that they go look up an undergraduate ecology textbook on this one. A blatant lie.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
The statement "evolution is missing a mathematical formula" as a reason for why it's wrong is a start.

This is absolutely true. There are many component algorithms in evolutionary theory, many descriptions of parts of the theory. Evolution is an algorithmic, probabalistic, theory.

The website makers are not, I believe, stupid. They are merely liars.

Originally posted by SwissGambit

If you are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and they all are wrong about God"?

Oh, you mean, like religions tend to do with other religions?

This was supposed to go in Thread 94963.

Originally posted by jaywill
I am curious. I had to read for more than just ten seconds.

Could you quote the sentence that you read in the first [b]tens seconds that convinced you that it was a waste of time.[/b]

http://darwinconspiracy.com/

This'll keep you busy.

That convinced me.

They prosecuted some poor sucker in these United States
For teaching that man descended from the apes
They coulda settled that case without a fuss or fight
If they'd seen me chasin' you, sugar, through the jungle last night
They'da called in that jury and a one two three said
Part man, part monkey, definitely

Well the church bell rings from the corner steeple
Man in a monkey suit swears he'll do no evil
Offers his lover's prayer but his soul lies
Dark and driftin' and unsatisfied
Well hey bartender, tell me whaddaya see
Part man, part monkey, looks like to me

Well the night is dark, the moon is full
The flowers of romance exert their pull
We talk awhile, my fingers slip
I'm hard and crackling like a whip

Well did God make man in a breath of holy fire
Or did he crawl on up out of the muck and mire
Well the man on the street believes what the bible tells him so
Well you can ask me, mister, because I know
Tell them soul-suckin' preachers to come on down and see
Part man, part monkey, baby that's me

Bruce Springsteen

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This is absolutely true. There are many component algorithms in evolutionary theory, many descriptions of parts of the theory. Evolution is an algorithmic, probabalistic, theory.

The website makers are not, I believe, stupid. They are merely liars.

Well, I don't know whether or not they're liars, but is there a so called working formula for evolution?

As you know, I don't know squat about algorithms.

Originally posted by josephw
Well, I don't know whether or not they're liars, but is there a so called working formula for evolution?

As you know, I don't know squat about algorithms.

read scott's post again. maybe you will get it.

working formula for evolution he says. formulas are needed when they could better explain what it would otherwise be a lengthy sentence. or when you need to introduce it in other formulas. do you have a formula explaining that HCl on AgNO3 produces AgCl?

Originally posted by josephw
Well, I don't know whether or not they're liars, but is there a so called working formula for evolution?

As you know, I don't know squat about algorithms.

There are many mathematical descriptions of (parts of) evolution. The work of Hamilton, Trivers, Haldane and Fischer in the early to mid-20th Century was largely modelling population genetics. Richard Dawkins, in his scientific career, furthered this to some extent.

But, it is important to remember that a theory is an explanation of a whole data set. There is no mathematical model which spans all of plate techtonic theory, for example, yet there are many partial models which describe what is happenning in certain parts.