Feedback from this site has proven most valuable, when constructing worksheets for the Science classroom,
I have attempted a new tack – by bearding the creationist lion in the classroom den.
I offer the following for everyone’s perusal.
I welcome correction or suggestions for improvement.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/djr9c4e2lymsb33/Irreducible%20complexity%20of%20photosynthesis.docx?dl=0
with best and grateful regards
You’re the total retard. That was a quote from someone else’s book – yes, the site contains a number of book reviews including this one:
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism – by Richard Milton
October 11, 2017
http://nonlin.org/shattering-the_myths-of-darwinism/
Only “evolution” as designer is a total myth.
Start your education here: http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/
I made the mistake of clicking and reading a bit of that crap. Nolin seems rather stupid, and I think he/she came here just to try and get attention to his bullshit. Don’t bother.
Take this “gem” for example:
Yes. Nonlin didn’t understand that Darwin wasn’t using that as an example of natural selection, but as an example of what selection can do in human hands, and as the basis for the metaphor built into the concept of natural selection.
What do you mean:
“what selection can do in human hands”?
The humans were/are doing the selection. Of course Darwin wanted to use an analogy, but he messed up with this “metaphor”.
You’re certainly not going to like what you read, but you need valid counterarguments to be taken seriously.
Yet you declared that Darwin thought of it as an example of “natural selection.” If you knew that wasn’t the case, then you wrote that for mere rhetorical effect, regardless of how ignorant it would make you appear.
I suspect that you write with derision. You don’t care about whether you’re making sense. You just care about whether something sounds ridiculous enough. Unfortunately for you, it ends up backfiring. It shows you missing the point, and the ridicule you wanted to land on Darwin landed on your intellect, or lack thereof.
Of course not. It’s written by an ignorant fool who pretends to make fun of scientists and ends up ridiculing himself/herself.
Counterarguments to what? Mistaken notions are not arguments, and thus I don’t need a counterargument. All I need to do is exactly what I did: point at your pretentious ignorance.
From what you write, I already suspect that you won’t take me seriously regardless of how much I might try and show you the stupidity of what you write. You seem to be incompetent at understanding, even what you have written yourself. You don’t take yourself seriously enough to stop yourself from presenting mistaken notions when you feel like it. Since you cannot take yourself seriously, I doubt that you can take anybody else seriously.
You make no sense and try to compensate with nastiness. Why don’t you try to write something intelligent and see if that leads to something meaningful? If you can, that is.
As far as Darwin, you obviously don’t understand (or disagree) that the selecting humans make all the difference. Why use a biologic (intelligent human selector) example? Because there was no alternative.
I’m not surprised that you wouldn’t get it. You have a very poor intellect, as you made sure to demonstrate, again:
No kidding! The selecting humans made all the difference that Darwin presented as the selecting humans making all the difference? Now I’m so surprised! Your insight is incredible!
Darwin bred pigeons himself. It’s only natural and obvious to try and present a new concept to people using things that people would be familiar with. Do you really think it would be much easier to try and use something nobody else knew about? Are you stupid? If you think I’m been nasty is because you don’t talk to yourself. Otherwise you’d be nauseated at your own intellectual stench.
You keep missing the point. So here it goes again: if you knew that Darwin was using that as an analogy, then why the hell did you say, in that bullshit of a blog of yours, that Darwin presented it as an example of natural selection? Were you just trying to demonstrate that you could not care less if you misrepresented Darwin’s point? Was your intention to make sure that people who know better would conclude that you’re a pretentious ignorant idiot?
Moved a post to guano.
Please comment on what is posted, rather than on the person that wrote it.
In the real world there’s quite a bit of difference between the results of artificial and natural selection. Breeders concentrate on a few traits, and often produce populations having health problems. It’s a big problem with purebred dogs.
Moved some posts to guano.
Discuss moderation in the moderation thread.
Not at all. It was perfect and still is. Artificial selection done by humans is an instance of natural selection and provides concrete emprical demonstration of the kind of change that can be brought about by a population by the ongoing process of nonrandom death and breeding.
phoodoo,
By taking those quotes out of context you missed the reason for them, which were clearly shown in their context. I made a point each time. Nonlin didn’t make any point. He/she refused to understand, too many times, and, out of frustration that it was so easy to demonstrate that he/she was missing the point time and again, he/she decided to insult and leave it there. Of course, the empty insult shows that Nonlin missed the point again. Not really the effect he/she might have been looking for.
While I’d agree that those sentences might be borderline, most of them were questions, and none of them was an insult. They were inspired by Nonlin’s blog and comments. There’s a difference between insulting on the one side, and asking if he/she wanted to produce some effect, or, at times, concluding, based on the evidence, that there might be a problem with Nonlin. But Nonlin had material to refute and thus show me wrong. He/she just continued on tangents that showed further confusion, and missed the point. How’s that my fault?
What rule is there that I need to give the context of your insults?
There is no context, you illiterate dufus. You said what you said, and Neil is playing your wet nurse for you.
Interestingly, plants don’t require wet nurses, you know because of photosynthesis and all.