Re: Darwin the 'dunce' 'founder?' of modern evolution

In message <7a7e2f92-724b-48e0-ad16-5df1d92cd2a4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Art Biele <Abiele7000@xxxxxxx> writes
On Feb 14, 4:52 am, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 14, 7:55 am, Art Biele <Abiele7...@xxxxxxx> wrote:


> On Feb 12, 3:30 pm, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"

> <richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 7:08 pm, Art Biele <Abiele7...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > > No, it isn't.
> > > > It's a pack of falsehoods derived from creationist sources > > > >embellished
> > > > with inventions of your own.

> > > > Get a freakin' education.

> > > > RF
> > Get a freakin' education. You are at best utterly ignorant, at worst
> > utterly dishonest.

> > RF

> With respect to the finches:

> Darwin’s Finches:

> It was once claimed by evolutionists that the Finches found on the
> Galapagos Islands are an excellent example of Darwinian evolution in
> action. They once claimed up to 31 species of finch lived on those
> Islands, but that figure had dropped in modern times to 13 species, 3
> genuses’, and one family. However. Recent research has shown that all
> 13 species are capable of interbreeding

FALSEHOOD #1
No, it hasn't. It has shown that *some* of the species are capable of
interbreeding.

>and they do interbreed.

That does not mean that they are not distinct species.

> They
> are descendants of a single pair of finches and the radiation that
> occurred in the Galapagos occurred in the range of hundreds of years,
> not millions or even thousands of years.

FALSEHOOD #2
I've posted a link to a paper which demonstrates that they radiated
over a period of over two million years.

> A recent drought demonstrated
> a rapid increase in long beak finches over just a two to three year
> period.

Quite so.
Your point?

It means that you evolutionists are full of Bull *** and will keep
changing your definitions to keep your pet evidences and theories of
'evolution' alive. Darwin and his pro-evolution anti-Bible mentors
(Lyell, Huxley, etc) were wrong about how physical characterictics)
changes impercepttively in ones lifetime, but over very long periods
of time species slowly evolve into new species, and the finches were
his prime example, they force fitted their data into their
manufactured fabricated method and mode of evolution evolutionary
scenario.

If you want to serve the Lord you should refrain from promulgating falsehoods. By tarnishing Christianity by associating it with falsehoods you promote atheism.

1) Huxley was not one of Darwin's mentors. The reverse is nearer the truth.

2) Huxley famously argued that Darwin should not exclude saltationism.

3) Darwin did not convince Lyell of the factuality of evolution until long after the time-period during which Lyell could be considered one of Darwin's mentors. (And why did you neglect to mention Darwin's mentors during his time at Cambridge - the Rev. Sedgwick and the Rev. Henslow?)

4) You should not conflate non-acceptance of your preferred biblical exegesis with being anti-Bible.

5) The Galapagos finches are not explictly mentioned in "On the Origin of Species".

The definition defining Species in the 20th century is the ability to
interbreed. Therefore it has been determined that all of Dawin's
Finches are known to be capable of interbreeding, thus they are one
species under the standard and most common definition of species
established by evolutionists. So how does Peter Grant respond to what
mus be a very discomforting discovery for evolutionists everywhere,
with a paper on "What is a species?" And in Peter Grants worthless
meanderings he concludes that:

You've already been asked at least twice for evidence of your claim that all of Darwin's Finches are capable of interbreeding. Rather than reiterate the claim would you be so kind as to provide that evidence.

Apart from that you misrepresent the Biological Species Concept. The idea of that if two populations are capable of interbreeding then they are the same species oversimplies the Biological Species Concept to the point that it is not an accurate representation thereof. Even if you haven't read the literature on concepts of what is a species the existence of widely known hybrids (e.g. mules) between what are universally recognised as separate species should have been a hint that you didn't understand the definition.

"In light of what we learned about Darwins' finches [they can all
interbreed] we define species similarly [as Mayr defined it: a
population is a species if they can interbreed], but without the
exclusive emphasis on genetic isolation. Species comprise one or more
populations capable of breeding with little or no fitness loss. ...
this [definition of species] is important for Darwins finches and many
other species of terrestrial birds because a major component of the
barrier to interbreed is not a genetic one but is learned."

It would have been nice if you had deigned to give a citation for this quote. I can't find any evidence that this material exists - both Google Scholar and Google Web searches are coming up blank when presenting with phrases from the above paragraph.

Here you Richard, this new self-serving definition of species is why
you are stupidly claiming that Darwins' finches are different species,
because they normally choose to not interbreed. By this definition,
human caucasians and blacks are two different species because both are
genetically isolated by generally choosing to not interbreed, a
learned behavior.

How can you live in America and claim with a straight face that "caucasians" and "blacks" are genetically isolated?

Tell me Richard, when are you going to go to Harlem to tell the black
men face to face that they are a seperate species of human than white
people? Yet this garbage is now going to be taught a fact of evolution
to the open unwary open minds of preteen, teen and young adult
students as a fact.

You evo's are disgusting with how you keep coming up with nonsense,
and then teach it as fact. This only supports that Evolution is a
false science that is taught in an Orwellian fashion, and those who do
not walk in lock step with it are targeted for elimination.

You are disgusting.

The Theory of Evolution is indeed palimpsest, Evo's constantly using
the present to rewrite the past in order to control the present and
the future by authoritatively imposing your foul evolutionary BELIEFS
on unwary and open minds throughout our education systems and denying
work, publication, tenure to those who clearly and accurately see it
differently than you, whom you censor mercilessly.

But isn't this what happened to you Richard, and so many other
proponents who post here, you are the ones that the saying is true:
The Blind leading the Blind.

How about dropping the 'blatant character assassination and ad hominem attacks'. (BTW, you flatter yourself by calling it "the product of weak, devious minds" - you don't reach the level of devious.)

If you can't support your position with good arguments (in this case logic and evidence) then you would be better to remain silent that to discredit it with bad argument (falsehoods, character assassination, race baiting and ad hominem).

--
alias Ernest Major

.

Loading