XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.conspiracy, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/18/2025 4:08 AM, Attila wrote:   
   > On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 22:01:09 -0400, JTEM    
   > in alt.atheism with message-id   
   > <107u1h5$2nv09$2@dont-email.me> wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 8/17/25 8:12 PM, Attila wrote:   
   >>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:18:11 -0400, JTEM    
   >>> in alt.atheism with message-id   
   >>> <107tde5$2im6m$1@dont-email.me> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 8/17/25 3:55 PM, Attila wrote:   
   >>>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 16:55:04 -0400, JTEM    
   >>>>> in alt.atheism with message-id   
   >>>>> <107qr78$1tvu3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 8/16/25 1:08 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I've said it before and I'll say it again:  Darwin is a myth.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!   
   >>>>>>>> ....   
   >>>>>>>> So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was   
   >>>>>>>> the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin   
   >>>>>>>> nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You can always talk about evolution WITHOUT human names! Just focus on   
   >>>>>>> what he said rather than judging his personalities and characters.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Huh?!?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Did you not read what you're replying to?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Darwin did not believe in evolution.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built   
   >>>>>> up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle"   
   >>>>>> gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to   
   >>>>>> their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these   
   >>>>>> larger muscles.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So my advice to you is to STOP believing everything you're told and   
   >>>>>> to START investigating things for yourself.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Pangenesis   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> THAT was Darwin's one and only "Theory," and he came out with it AFTER   
   >>>>>> Mendel had already come up with the right answer!   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Evolution exists.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So does reading comprehension, even if not for you.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Topic isn't evolution, and it certainly never was for Darwin. The topic   
   >>>> is Darwin, who never believed in evolution.   
   >>   
   >>> Who cares?   
   >>   
   >> You do. Which is why you keep replying. If you didn't care you wouldn't   
   >> even take notice, much less involve yourself.   
   >>   
   >> Effort follows interest.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Or I was bored and dislike people like you who like word   
   > games.   
   >   
   > Darwin's claim to fame is the association of his name with   
   > evolution, and evolution is by far the more important   
   > factor.  Unless you are a biologist or a biographer any   
   > interest in Darwin is passing, minor, and relatively   
   > unimportant.  Yet you go to great lengths to separate the   
   > two and insist on limiting the discussion to Darwin alone.   
   >   
   > As I said, who cares?  I don't and I am through with this   
   > topic, such as it is.   
   >   
      
   Please note that JTEM has not (yet) replied to my post about the   
   statistician and geneticist Ronald A. Fisher.   
      
   Prior to Darwin and his work, the prevailing view among scholars was   
   that species were immutable, having been each specially created by an   
   omnipotent God.  Darwin demonstrated that such a viewpoint was no longer   
   necessary; instead, Darwin postulated "descent with modification" from a   
   single common ancestor for all living species.  It was the   
   "modification" part and not the "evolution" part that scholars disputed   
   after Darwin, which, in the 20th-century, resulted in the Neo-Darwinian   
   synthesis that is the dominant paradigm among scholars in our day.  Of   
   course, it was Professor Fisher who laid much of the mathematical   
   foundation for that paradigm, and with the discovery of the replication   
   mechanism of DNA by Watson and Crick (and Franklin!), it has been the   
   innumerable little details that scholars continue to fill-in daily since   
   then.  The big remaining issue is, of course, abiogenesis, but as with   
   mineral evolution, it is at least a sure bet that some chemical   
   evolutionary mechanism will be uncovered to explain how living molecules   
   arose from non-living molecules.   
      
   Dawn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)