Help me with something momentarily if you would CTD.. I am struggling with an item In order to follow the suspicious agenda money trail.
My question is, can you name one or two major, they have to be major, items/areas where Dawrin's research unarguably contibutes to current biological research/genetic research? Not theories, solid science, facts, items that without which (valid) modern biological sciences would truly fail.
Their claims of application for evolutionism are invariably applications of genetics & other legit biology - same types of research which work just fine (usually much better) without baseless presuppositions.
Where they
do make money is in medical & psychiatric fields. But your use of the term "unarguably contributes" cancels things out there as well.
Bottom line: many of them are honestly confused & think genetics = evolutionism. Much has been discovered & implemented, but none of it ever depended upon the blind faith of the researchers in the validity of circular arguments & pseudoscience.
Lysenko had some temporary results that were amazing. Some of his plants were wildly successful during their first year, but then they'd revert right back where they started. The genes he denied could exist kept coming back to haunt him. And genes aren't the only thing the commies denied could exist...
Linda keeps mentioning ontogeny, hope I spelled that right, but I don't buy ontogeny and absorbed whale limbs as conclusive evidence of evolution of any sort. A caterpillar becomes a butterfly and yet there is no hint of wings or even the butterfly itself within the caterpillar, the butterfly is not an evolved caterpillar. Hidden parts, absorbed parts, meaningless as evidence of evolution to me. Simply parts of a process.
Talkdeceptions says "biogenetic law" doesn't support evolutionism - then they turn right around and list it in their "evidence for evolution".
It's just another variation on homology: see these things look alike! They must be related! Anyone you know related to a mannequin? Doesn't matter a lick how much things look alike. There are flies that look just like bees, but the evolutionist says other bees are more closely related than the fly that's the spittin' image. They don't even buy their own argument, except when it suits them.
I'll tell you something more. It doesn't even matter how much things
actually are alike. Both the telephone and the radio were invented almost simultaneously by different inventors. There have been others as well. Being alike doesn't mean things share a common source. Only history can identify sources. Fantasy can never accomplish this.
Phylogeny, the tree of life item, I do believe that is phylogeny, correct me if I am wrong... utter nonsense. I view the idea more as a secular explanation/replacement of the biblical 'tree of life' to an ignorant 5th grader, loudly bespeaking Huxley's influence. Not sure that is darwinian anyway but it gets mentioned enough. It is definitely Huxley's 'replacement' theology though his name may not be on it directly.
More rubbish. "Nested hierarchy" is the modern evospeak term. Talkdeceptions freely admits
any group of objects can be arranged in a "nested hierarchy". I've seen it done - it's easy.
Then they turn right around & claim that when just anybody does this with just anything, it's subjective, but when
they do it, it's objective & scientific. They say it's objective because when evolutionists do it, they all arrange things the same way.
But they don't. No 2 evo-trees are the same. They've got 4 or 5 different ways of branching "human evolution" alone
So much of Darwin's work, research, is not original but simply notes, details and observations, but without an exhaustive review of biological sciences who is and whats between 1870-1930 or so I am a bit lost. Two really really important items, is all I need, that prove darwin's reputation is worth the gold ascribed to it by people like Linda and Linear. One item... eh not so sure, surely there are many more scientists and researchers who have contributed more.
anyway it is late but if I don't ask now while the questions are there I will forget by tomorrow afternoon.
Because as usual the only thing I can find that keeps sticking it's head up is racism and eugenics as to why so many people jumped on the darwinian band wagon as the Civil Biology textbook testifies. I would like to see some real truly important beneficial scientific contributions if you know of any. Not items darwin noted or wrote about that were already known, that does not count as his own.
It got a lot of atheists motivated to get out & investigate things. Many of their conclusions were wrong, but a lot of data was collected. Shoot - most of their discoveries support the truth, but they manage to miss it.
I'll keep trying, but I don't really expect to come up with much. If you look at any of their claims just ask: "would a non-Darwinian biologist have been unable to find this?"
