Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
No close enough Melbourne is only a couple of days drive from here.Seen it.
That seems quite a way from Melbourne.
Alex
No close enough Melbourne is only a couple of days drive from here.Seen it.
That seems quite a way from Melbourne.
You have several times now been provided with descriptions of one or more of the ways Darwinian theory was and has been tested - and tested quite thoroughly, over more than a century of research by tens of thousands of biologists and other professionals in their fields. Why do you think these ways do not exist?I reject the idea darwinism, as it cannot be observed, or tested.
Iirc no particular speed or rate is mentioned in his formulation of it. Define "slow".To your last statement ; Darwinism does have to be slow , that is the essence of his theory
He wouldn't have had to. All the discoveries since his time have fit into his theory just fine.True though if he had been alive today , he would have thought much differently
Iirc no particular speed or rate is mentioned in his formulation of it. Define "slow".
He wouldn't have had to. All the discoveries since his time have fit into his theory just fine.
We have seen it happen in tens of years due to anthropogenic pressures, and tens of thousands of years for natural pressures.Slow , billions , millions of years , hundreds of thousands of years
Pakicetus -> whale evolution. (as recorded in the fossil record.)What discoveries have proved Darwins theories .
Since he didn't even know about genetics, that's a pretty absurd assumption.Once Darwin found out about epigenetics , he would have added it to his thinking upon evolution
I think the answer to that is fairly obvious . . . .Hate, like stupidity, is a terrible thing river. I feel for you!
Just one question, why are you banned from the sciences?
I think the answer to that is fairly obvious . . . .
Yep, that's why he [river] is banned from the sciences.Slow , billions , millions of years , hundreds of thousands of years
What discoveries have proved Darwins theories .
Once Darwin found out about epigenetics , he would have added it to his thinking upon evolution .
We have seen it happen in tens of years due to anthropogenic pressures, and tens of thousands of years for natural pressures.
Pakicetus -> whale evolution. (as recorded in the fossil record.)
Since he didn't even know about genetics, that's a pretty absurd assumption.
Certainly not billions, in Darwin's time. Well. probably not. Darwin thought it was older than the physicists thought it was, but "billions" would have been a stretch.Slow , billions , millions of years , hundreds of thousands of years
? How does a discovery "prove" a theory?What discoveries have proved Darwins theories .
No doubt he would have been happy to have a mechanism of inheritance, the weak spot of his theory at the time - but his theory works with a wide variety of mechanisms. People designing circuits for AI via Darwinian processes often use manipulation of electrical charge.Once Darwin found out about epigenetics , he would have added it to his thinking upon evolution .
A disgrace to the human species...well said.I found something that is short and sweet for members who are becoming frustrated with Jan to remind them of the insummountable hurdle we face with creationist and why we have no chance of them accepting anything that goes against their belief.
Look at the facts we have given to Jan ...his response affirms the proposition that facts can not win against belief.
The last part of the video references someone who knows the facts and it is interesting to hear that story and remember it when trying to understand Jan.
Alex
I realise a lot of things about you...being right isn't one of them.You relise I am right .
ps: We need to be careful, we now have river [that bastion of one liner gobblydook and word salad] as well as our friend Jan!!
Me neither, other then a great laugh...the atomic war on Mars between two Alien species was funnier then a Three Stooges episode.River does not bother me.
Perhaps I have heard too much of his type of regurgitated nonsense over the years, to be able to take the "sympathy" approach you have...kudos for that.I have found dealing with Jan beneficial as he has caused me to open my eyes and look at the folk who represent the cult like Ray Comfort and Copeland and actually take a little time to observe their deluded behaviour.
Here's how that conversation would have gone:He would have thought upon epigenetics because epigenetics changes your genetic expression .
Perhaps I have heard too much of his type of regurgitated nonsense over the years, to be able to take the "sympathy" approach you have...kudos for that.
Gee that's a wise, logical, sensible statement Alex.Ironically you demand so much of science that if you made the same demands of scripture you could only conclude scripture is incredibly useless.
Alex
Clearly , pad , billvon and Xelasnave.1947 are in way over there heads .
By evidence of their collective stupid responses .