She means “bicentenary.”
Wow great post.
This one is really good. The real question is, are there any ten things old Chuck Darwin ever got right, or even one thing for that matter?
ping
Ironically, and unknown to non-scientific types, theories evolve and get refined as new data becomes available. Because Darwin did not have benefit of a thorough knowledge of DNA is meaningless. Even today there is still an incomplete understanding of DNA.
Good find...Ping!
That starts out bad and gets worse.
1. The "warm little pond" theory
1. The evolutionary theory does not address the origins of life.
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421
2.The supposed simplicity of the cell
2. Cells are complex now, that doesn't meand the first cells had to be complex. There's this theory you may have heard of called "evolution".
3.His ideas about the information inside the cell
3.
Make up a claim, attribute it to Darwin, prove claim wrong. All in a days work for a lying creationist
4. His expectation of intermediate fossils
4. More blatant lies. Our understanding of the fossil record is very good - not perfect, but considering how rare it is for an animal to become a fossil and how fragile they are, we're lucky to have as many good ones as we do.
5. His failure to see the limits of variation of species
5.Yet more blatant lies - species getting differentiated has been observed both in the fossil record and in the lab. As an example, sheep are a separate species (can no longer be interbred) with a mouflon, which they were descended from.
6. His discounting of the Cambrian explosion
6."there is still no evolutionary mechanism that can satisfactorily explain the sudden appearance of so many completely different life-forms" - Sure, if you discount punctuated equilibrium, which explains exactly that. Also, expecting Darwin to have an answer for something which wasn't really understood until after his death is dishonest
7. His theory of homology
7.I'm just gonna let this failure of logic stand on its own: "Darwin says similarities between animals is evidence for evolution, but I think it was because God was lazy".
8. His theory of human beings evolving from apes
8.Again, just stating a part of the theory of evolution and then saying "I disagree with that" is not an argument, unless you can show why you think it was wrong. Also, both apes and humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor, humans didn't evolve from modern apes.
9.His theory of the tree of life
9.Speciation again. It's as wrong as it was in #5. What, you couldn't think up ten lies, so you just used one of them twice? that's pretty pathetic.
10. His rejection of biblical creation by God
10.Again; "I disagree with Darwin, therefore he was wrong. No, I don't need any evidence to support my views."
A weak list even by the lax standards of creationism. Not that I was really expecting something rational or intellectually honest. There's this undercurrent of "If I can prove Darwin was wrong about something, I've demolished evolution!" running through the whole list, which just increases the amount of fail. Why would it matter even if he was wrong? how would that disprove 150 years of scientific discovery that back up evolution?
The claim was and remains that we are 98-99% the same in GENETIC DNA. A finding of 94-96% the same over the entire genome was an expected result due to the idea that neutral mutations are more likely in non gene or regulatory DNA sequences.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html
“Eichler and his colleagues found that the human and chimp sequences differ by only 1.2 percent in terms of single-nucleotide changes to the genetic code”
“Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species (in DNA).”
For those of you in Rio Linda I repeat....
98.8% same in genetic DNA
96% the same over the entire genome.
One question was whether the universe had purpose. I chose a few words from the answers given as typical:
“I regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. It hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless. To project onto it our human-inspired notion of purpose would, to my mind, sully and diminish it.
Peter William Atkins is a Fellow and professor of chemistry at Lincoln College, Oxford.
Another:
“So in the absence of human hubris, and after we filter out the delusional assessments it promotes within us, the universe looks more and more random. Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as other events that would just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible, to assert. So while I cannot claim to know for sure whether or not the universe has a purpose, the case against it is strong, and visible to anyone who sees the universe as it is rather than as they wish it to be.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist and the Director of New York City's Hayden Planetarium.
You'll recognize his smiling face on cable t.v. science programs. He once said he didn't care about definitions of life, he wanted to see something crawl out a beaker.
But perhaps these are just atheists or nearly so who have no appreciation of religion. Could be, but note the position held by the next writer:
“But just what are our minds anticipating? What are they reaching for? If, along with me, you are asking this question, you are already closing in on the answer. Your mind is engaged at his very moment in nothing less than the search for truth. And simply by reaching toward truth both you and your mind's natural root system–the universe–are ennobled. As they are being taken captive by the most undeniable of values, truth itself, they are already participating in its empowering though always elusive presence. It is because this transcendent value has already taken hold of you, and in you the whole universe, that you can have faith in your critical intelligence and also trust that the universe has a purpose.
Purpose, after all, means quite simply the bringing about of something undeniably and permanently good. Is that what is going on in the cosmos?
As long as you are drawn toward truth, so also is the natural world that gave birth to your mind. The two, after all, are inseparable. As long as the search for truth persists, not only can you trust your mind, you can also trust the universe that has germinated such an exquisite means of opening itself to what is timelessly worth treasuring.
John F. Haught is Senior Fellow, Science & Religion, at the Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.”
So far the answers to question of purpose of the universe have been “No”, “Maybe” and “Yes”, but even the ‘yes’ is ‘new age’ “You (or at least your mind) are a child of the universe’ warmed over nonsense.
Darwinism's Dismal Doctrine: The universe is useless and without purpose and by extension, so are humans.
bttt.
The whole wide world was open to Darwin to speculate over its origins. Now wonder who taught Darwin to build his own way? That tower of Babel ‘allegory’ did not happen by happenstance. Any way even back in Solomon’s days he penned there was nothing ‘new’ under the sun and so it is even to these days and this generation.