From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/12/2025 4:44 PM, sticks wrote:   
   > On 11/12/2025 10:20 AM, RonO wrote:   
   >> On 11/11/2025 5:38 PM, sticks wrote:   
   >>> On 11/10/2025 7:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >   
   > ---snip---   
   >   
   >>>> Your sig is "Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do.". Who is   
   >>>> concluding that science doesn't support Darwin?   
   >>>   
   >>> If you want to get pedantic, obviously me since it is my sig.  But   
   >>> are you really saying you have not heard this before?  Would you feel   
   >>> better if my stance on this was this instead:  The Evidence Doesn't   
   >>> Support Darwin.  Scientists Do.   
   >>   
   >> This is actually a lie.  Natural selection has been demonstrated to be   
   >> a fact of nature, and that is basically all that Darwin added to   
   >> evolutionary notions.  He just came up with one of the known   
   >> mechanisms for producing the diversity of life on earth.  Darwin's   
   >> grandfather is known to have advocated the evolution of life on   
   >> earth.  What Darwin proposed was a means of evolving the diversity of   
   >> life that we currently observe, and he turned out to be correct, and   
   >> science consistently vindicates his hypothesis.   
   >   
   > Everyone acknowledges micro evolution.  I am unaware of anything   
   > vindicating his natural selection mechanism being able to create another   
   > anything.  From a new limb, wings, anything, but especially a new family   
   > of animals.  Of course there are changes from gene mutation copying   
   > errors, but most all are harmful.  But as far as I'm aware there is   
   > absolutely no proof of macro evolution where one form turns into   
   > another.  I have no problem with people who believe natural selection   
   > has the type of powers the evolutionist claims.  I'm sure they will put   
   > out their evidence when they get it.   
      
   When does micro evolution stop and macro evolution begin?  If you look   
   at extant life on earth macro evolution (evolution at the species level)   
   is just a lot of micro evolution.   
      
   Ignorance is not your friend.   
      
   ID perps like Behe and Denton understand that biological evolution is a   
   fact of nature.  They are both theistic evolutionists of different   
   types.  Behe is a tweeker, and thinks that his designer is tweeking   
   things every once in a while, and Denton only claims that his designer   
   started the ball rolling with the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what   
   we have today.   
      
   The evidence for macro evolution is overwhelming.  Anyone that   
   understand the molecular data understands the relationships between   
   extant life on earth.  Tweekers like Behe have to contend that the   
   designer evolved apes around 20 million years ago from among the various   
   lineages of monkeys that existed at that time.  The ape genome evolved   
   for millions of years before the designer used that evolved ape genome   
   to tweek upright walking apes into existence, possibly, around 8 million   
   years ago.  Upright walking ape genomes evolved for millions of years   
   before Homo was tweeked into existence over 2 million years ago.  Homo   
   genomes evolved for a while until a few hundred million years ago what   
   we consider to be modern humans were tweeked into existence.   
      
   Our DNA links us to the other great apes, to gibbons, to monkeys and   
   prosimians.  Whatever the designer did the designer always used an   
   existing genomic template to modify just a little to get what needed to   
   be done, done.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >> What creationists are lying about when they put up such nonsense is   
   >> the notion that natural mechanisms of evolution are all that there   
   >> ever was or is.  Darwin never held such beliefs, and he understood   
   >> that natural selection was likely only one way that life could be   
   >> changed by descent with modification.   
   >   
   > Yes, he kept inserting references to his deistic Darwinism in every   
   > edition as a means of preempting his opponents.  I believe he had many   
   > doubts of his theory, with good reason.  But in the end he held onto   
   > materialistic thinking.   
      
   Natural selection is a fact of nature.  There is no valid reason to   
   reject it at this time.  A lot has been learned since Darwin's time.   
      
   Dembski is the ID perp that once admitted that natural selection could   
   be the designer, just not an intelligent designer, but Dembski was also   
   the ID perp that claimed that space alien designers were the most   
   scientific possible intelligent designers.   
      
   >   
   >> As has been noted in this thread the notion that life has evolved on   
   >> this planet solely by natural means has never been part of the   
   >> scientific theory of biological evolution.  It wasn't initiated by   
   >> Darwin, and never became part of the scientific theory.  The   
   >> scientific theory of biological evolution only consists of what we   
   >> have been able to determine about it.  It does not include things that   
   >> have not been scientifically demonstrated to be so.   
   >   
   > You might feel what you say to be true, but it is quite evident that the   
   > entire consensus today in the evolution crowd is everything happened   
   > with only natural means.  I don't see how you can say otherwise to be   
   > honest.   
      
   That is basically true only among some atheistic evolutionists (even   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)