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

On Feb 14, 1:46 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message
<7a7e2f92-724b-48e0-ad16-5df1d92cd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Art
Biele <Abiele7...@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.

You are correct, Huxley was not Darwins Mentor, Lyell definitely was
and i believe it was Lyell who actually came up with has been called
Charles Darwin's sole contribution to Evolution theory, his mechanism
of the very gradual ongoing accumulative novel changes a species
continually undergo, with Natural selection selecting the best ones.
To date, science has falsified this alleged mechanism, it has never
been observed, and the changes that Darwin and friends did observe was
caused by a mechanism Darwin knew nothing about, Mendellian genetics.
Darwin never really understod what causes variation in the species.

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

Yes he did, it was based on Huxley's honest observation of the fossil
record of his day where none observed any gradual evolution evolution.
Just like today, the fossil record is one of the abrupt appearance of
species in the fossil record followed by stasis. As Gould pointed out,
Darwin and Lyeel were both wrong in their claims of gradualism, in
geology and as a legitimate mode of the predicted single phylogenic
Tree.

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?)

Because it was Charles Lyell whom Darwin said that he never gave Lyell
enough credit for his theory of evolution, that half ot it came from
Lyell's mind. Darwin claimed that he came to see evolution through
Lyell's eyes. By 1837, a mere year or so after meeting Charles Lyell,
Darwin already had formulated his mechanism on how evolution can occur
without any need for God's help. That was the ultimate Goal of Lyell
and friends.

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".

I believe they are. 1859 edition pages 397 and 398. Darwin clearly was
referring to the finches he brought back from the Galopagos. Charles
Darwin did not know what kind of birds they were, but back in England,
ornithologist John Gould identified them to Darwin and Gould told
Darwin that they consisted of 25 different species. Diferentiation of
species in Darwin's day merely meant that for each finch there were at
least some variation between the 25 of the 26 birds Gould examined.

In his effort to undermine the Biblical account of creation in the
Bible, Darwin makes a real dumb statement: "why should the species
which are supposed to have been created in the Galapagos Archipelago,
and nowhere else, bear so plain a stamp of affinity to those created
in America?" Darwin makes a strawmen argument by suggesting the
finches, according to Biblical accounts of Creation must have been
created there in the Galapagos. Biblical Creation makes no claim that
species are found only where they are created. There could be many
paths by which the finches and other birds arrived there.


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.

Ask Peter Grant. Grant has made efforts to redefine 'species' so that
by eliminating "The ability to interbreed" from being part of the
definition of the what is a species, so that Darwins' Finches and
other birds can still be labelled as different sepecies despite the
fact that they all can interbreed.

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.

I am well aware, and have argued for years and forcefully, that
evolutionists have no good definition for the word 'species' period. I
argued it here on talk origins. I now see there is a T.O. article
admitting the problems I raised of defining a species.

The word has always lacked meaning because evolutionists could never
bring the definition of 'species' into conformance with their
doctrines on evolution. It has been left ill defined and is
predominantly for evolutionary propaganda. Evolutionists demand that
the word 'species' be used to enforce the concept of a single
evolutionary tree of life and the word keeps failing them.



"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.

Yes I should have. Am having trouble finding it now. I must stop now,
can't go on.. I'll take your adice to be more cordial should I post
further in this forum.

Mayr had another definition for species, perhaps it was a jest when
addressing his peers:. "Species are whatever we want them to be."

.

Loading