Jed, I have. The more I do, the more I realize Darwinian Evolution is a lie and a fraud.
You see, over the years many "neo" Darwinists have been coming up with explanations to plug the leaky holes of Darwin's original theory. Neo Darwininism is now a hodgepodge conglomeration of increasingly dubious ideas. Take Stephen J. Gould's idea of "Punctuated Evolution", that hypothesizes that evolution occurs in spurts. Punctuated Evolution was devised to explain why after over a century of intense fossil digging, we still have not found any of the supposedly "transition species".? So he came up with this nonsense to explain why transition species can not be found. So, he think he has plugged one hole, not realizing that he has opened up another bigger hole. Like, how do you explain "rapid" evolution without a cause. If evolution occurs in spurts, it is rapid and therefore does not fit Darwin's original idea that evolution is due to slow mutation and natural selection (survival of the fittest). Using this criteria, Gouild's Punctuated Evolution is no longer Darwinian Evolution. Both ideas presupposes a different mechanism that drive changes. What that mechanism is, Gould conveniently "does not know". Did you know that the entire narrative of man's supposed descent from ape-like creatures, to Lucy down to Homo Sapiens is stitched together by bones that would fit the bed of a small pickup truck. How can one be so biased as to claim that a truck full of bones is sufficient "fact" to claim the descent of man as a tautology. And there are a host of other ideas just a ridiculous and dubious as the above. So, as a matter of fact Jed, I know and have studied Darwinian Evolution. I am not the close-minded, propaganda-victim, blind faith individual you would like to believe. So, Jed, how many papers in Intelligent Design have you read and studied. Have you read Stephen Meyer's paper on Specified Complexity?. Have you read Microbiologist Micheal Behe's paper on Irreducible Complexity and the Bacterial Flagellum? Have you read Tipler's "The physics of Immortality"? (Jed, I said read the original paper, not the "For dummies" version you find in the web.) LOL.... Of course NOT.... cause reading these papers would give the field of Intelligent Design legitimacy, right? You will not engage in a debate with me on the fallacies of Darwinian Evolution because that would give me legitimacy, right? And of course, you won't debate a close-minded, propaganda-victim, blind faith individual because that is beyond your superior intellect and understanding, right? The same blinded belief why Bob Parks would not debate with you regarding Cold Fusion. OK, Whatever, at least we know who the close-minded individual here is. Jed, If you are so inclined, I can go into detail on the numerous significant problems of Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian Evolution theories like: 1. Irreducible Complexity 2. Specified Complexity 3. DNA Information 4. Biological Chirality 5. Abiogenesis 6. Impropability 7. Anthropic Principle 8. Lack of Fossil Record 9. Cell Structure 10. Fossil Graves 11. OOPS - Out-of-Place stuff These are just a sampling of the numerous holes of Neo-Darwinianism. Each Mack-truck hole is a significant problem for the theory in itself that any fair and open-minded person would gasp in amazemnet at the Darwinian Evolution lie that has been foisted on them. But, of course, you have superior understanding, so you won't even bother strudying these issues. Why, all the "experts" agree that Darwinian Evolution is correct, so no need to debate me, right? LOL ... Jojo PS. By the Way, Since Rule 2 is just a guideline, and "We make the rules as we go", and since this is a "scientific discussion", my posting of Darwinian Evolution is proper for this forum, right? And since, I can't persuade you to moderate your hijacking of this forum, might as well correct your misinformation and propaganda at every step. Let's see how many people here are as objective as they would like to believe. $100 bucks says I will now receive a barage of criticism that my posting on Darwinian Evolution is inappropriate, and no doubt from our "esteemed" colleage Dr. Peter Gluck. And of course, I can just go "F*** my self", right? Another $100 bucks says I will now be banned from this forum. And if that is so, so be it. That's the price I am willing to pay for standing up to what is right. And what am I standing for? Simply that people do not hijack Vortex-L with off-topic posts as clearly specified in our existing rules. Simply that we as a community try to preserve the relevance and value of Vortex-L by discussing only issues that are important. Dead Everest Bodies and Wisconsin Politics are clearly off-topic, and so is AGW propaganda. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides So Jed, you are so convinced about the truth of Darwinian Evolution. Answer my question. Have you read Darwin's "The origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man". . . . You know, there has been other research in this field since 1859. Several other biologists * have made observations that support the theory, and they have modified and expanded it. Perhaps you should look at some of the later work, rather than judging it by the first paper alone. many people who criticize cold fusion look only at the first paper by Fleischmann and Pons, which is admittedly not convincing. I think it is better to look at the totality of evidence. - Jed * When I say "several" biologists in this instance, I mean all of them.
