Friday, April 22, 2016

“Evolution” of Darwin’s Finches Tracked at Genetic Level

Fat, Drunk and Stupid



One thing we can all agree on is that the infamous finches on the Galápagos Islands are a classic icon of evolution. The difference is that evolutionists are playing the fool. Ever since Darwin wondered aloud that if the different types of finches he saw on the Galápagos Islands were not merely variants of a species, but in fact different species, then it “would undermine the stability of species,” and therefore the finches (and everything else) must have spontaneously arisen, evolutionists’ dullness has been embarrassing. Like the co-worker who reveals his ignorance as he rambles on about his pet peeve, evolutionists positivistic proclamations about the finches reveals an astonishing level of ignorance.

Darwin’s findings on the Galápagos Islands told him precisely nothing about how the finches, or anything else for that matter, could spontaneously arise as he would claim. Instead, it was all a silly, eighteenth century, non-scientific, religious argument. God would never create those finches, so they must have evolved.

To this day evolutionists continue to parrot this silly argument as though it has any relevance to modern science. And so not surprisingly, they import their centuries-old, religious views into today’s science, failing to comprehend what it actually means. Witness yesterday’s news item from the leading journal, Nature, which begins:

Researchers are pinpointing the genes that lie behind the varied beaks of Darwin’s finches – the iconic birds whose facial variations have become a classic example of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.

A classic example? It is a classic example of how utterly non scientific evolutionary “theory” is. The article discusses particular genes that have been identified as influencing the size and shape of the finch’s beak. And it rehearses the myth that changes that occurred in the finch populations over the course of recent drought years reveal “evolution in action”:

Shifts in this gene underlay an evolutionary change that researchers watched in 2004-05, during a drought that ravaged the Galápagos Islands, where the finches live. The beak sizes of one population of finches shrank, so as to avoid competing for food sources with a different kind of finch – and their genetics changed accordingly.

Of course there was no “evolution in action.” This is evolutionary mythology.

The finch’s beaks altered in response to the drought. The finches were still finches. No new finches arose, and no new beak designs arose.

This is not a story of random mutations luckily finding a new, improved, design that was then fixed in the population via natural selection. Preexisting genes influenced preexisting beak designs in preexisting finch species. And when the drought ceased the populations cycled back to their pre drought designs. New designs were not created.

But that is the science, and evolution never was about the science. Evolutionist’s on-going claims about the Galápagos finches are non scientific and, frankly, ridiculous. The finches truly are a classic icon of evolution. They don’t reveal a case of evolution in action, but rather evolutionary thought in action.

79 comments:

  1. Let me be the first to say that I am utterly enjoying the collapse of this fraudulent secular religion known as Darwinism. Good riddance. Click the link below for a better understanding of why Darwinists are acting more desperate (and irrational) than ever before. Their house of cards is collapsing!

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/intelligent_des_25102792.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius Hunter: Ever since Darwin wondered aloud that if the different types of finches he saw on the Galápagos Islands were not merely variants of a species, but in fact different species

    That's not accurate. Please try again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The most striking and important fact for us in regard to the inhabitants of islands, is their affinity to those of the nearest mainland, WITHOUT BEING ACTUALLY THE SAME SPECIES." Charles Darwin

      Delete
    2. Darwin never thought the "blackbirds", "gross-beaks", "wrens", and finches were variants of the same species. They were too different. Rather, he knew they were different species, but didn't recognize they were all related finches. That determination was made by the preeminent ornithologist of the day, John Gould.

      Delete
    3. How are they related? By common descent or a common design?

      Delete
    4. By common descent Joke. The genetic data shows all 14 species of Galapagos finches diversified from a single ancestral species which migrated to the islands from South America approx. 2.3 MYA. Their closest mainland relative is the tanager Tiaris obscura, also known as the Grassquit.

      On the Origin of Darwin's Finches

      I'm sure ID-Creationism can explain the genetic data, right? Wave those chubby hands and shout the non-explanation "common design!!"

      Delete
    5. LoL! Way to not follow along. Try to keep up, at least.

      Also we know it takes much less time for finches to diversify- for example 20 years is plenty of time for that.

      Also we have direct experience with common design and not so much Common Descent.

      Delete
    6. Two alien Evotards from the planet Evotardius arrive on planet Earth and they see a Great Dane and a Chihuahua for the first time.

      Alien #1: I wonder how long it took the big one to evolve from the little one.

      Alien #2: I think they are two different species that diverged millions of years ago from a common ancestor. They each evolved in response to environmental pressure. It's amazing what random mutations and natural selection can do.

      Alien #1: Isn't it? It's almost magical.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    7. I see neither Chubs nor Mr. Tourette's can address the genetic data presented. What a surprise.

      Delete
    8. Tell me, dirt worshipper. Did your closet homosexuality evolve to fill a hidden niche? Was it due to survival of the fittest? If so, can you point to the last common ancestor between homosexuals and heterosexuals? Any missing links in the fossil record? Don't tell me, bisexuals are the missing links, right?

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    9. Virgil: "Also we have direct experience with common design and not so much Common Descent."

      Speak for yourself. Myself and everyone else on this earth have parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents, etc. And so does every other animal and plant on the planet.

      Delete
    10. Mapou: "Tell me, dirt worshipper. Did your closet homosexuality evolve to fill a hidden niche?"

      Tell me, Mapou, how do you explain the fact that homosexuality is found in every mammal and bird that have been studied?

      Delete
    11. Bill, the dirt worshipper:

      Tell me, Mapou, how do you explain the fact that homosexuality is found in every mammal and bird that have been studied?

      LOL. Cancer, leprosy and diabetes also exist in birds and mammals. What is your point, evotard?

      Delete
    12. Myself and everyone else on this earth have parents, grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents, etc. And so does every other animal and plant on the planet.

      That is common descent and not Common Descent. The first is limited whereas the second is not.

      Delete
    13. What's the limitation Chubs?

      Delete
    14. Genetics- meaning there isn't any evidence that changes to genomes can produce the transformations required for Common Descent. No one knows how to test Common Descent.

      If you could figure that out then I am sure you would win a Nobel Prize- the first for anything evolution.

      Delete
    15. So you can't actually produce this claimed limitation, just spout your normal Creationist lies. Poor toaster repairman fails again.

      Delete
    16. LoL! You can't refute my claim t5hat genetics limits the amount of change possible. And every experiment ever conducted supports it. Go figure...

      But then again you are too stupid to understand that

      Delete
    17. Chubby Joke

      You can't refute my claim t5hat genetics limits the amount of change possible.


      Science doesn't have to refute stupid unsupported claims you pull from that fat ass. You're suppose to provide some supporting research yourself. But since you're too stupid and never look at the scientific literature anyway you'll never deliver.

      Delete
    18. Science supports my claim, moron. But then again you and science don't mix.

      Delete
    19. LOL! Whatever you say Fat Joke. Your opinion means so much to the professional scientific community.

      Delete
    20. It isn't my opinion, moron. And your alleged scientific community cannot refute my claim. And I understand that bothers you.

      Delete
    21. LOL! Whatever you say Fat Joke. Your opinion means so much to the professional scientific community.

      Delete
    22. You can tell who the moron is- the one who can only repeat its meaningless and refuted trope- enter Timmy Horton.

      Delete
    23. Well....back to flint knapping and brow ridges for you and your progeny ghostrider after the USD crashes. After all, survival off the fittest does not have any particular sense of direction. Except for neo-evolution. Then it's starships and starwars for sure.

      Delete
  3. Hmmm. The editors of the world's most highly respected science magazine, Nature, are stupid fools for publishing new research on evolution. This blog says so, so it must be true.

    Really jumped the shark on this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All Darwinists are stupid fools including the editors of Nature. Anybody who worships dirt as the mother of life is an idiot. This includes you too, Timothy Horton.

      This would not be the first time that so-called scientists are shown be complete idiots. In my own field (AI), we saw an entire "scientific" community of baby boomer idiots embrace a paradigm (symbolic AI aka GOFAI) for half a century, only to be proven 100% wrong. Countless billions were wasted.

      And guess what? The idiots are at it again with a new paradigm called deep learning, which is nothing but GOFAI with lipstick on.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    2. That was pretty good. We made it almost 3 hours before the Tourette's syndrome retard showed up.

      Delete
    3. But you're still a Christophobic atheist dirt worshipper. A moronic jackass. And a closet homosexual.

      LOL

      Delete
    4. ghostrider,

      "That was pretty good. We made it almost 3 hours before the Tourette's syndrome retard showed up."

      I'm not accusing of anything, but just think this through. Why is it intolerant and unacceptable to use sexual orientation as a ground for insults, but it is acceptable to use physical handicaps.

      Delete
    5. Nic the spineless Christian:

      Why is it intolerant and unacceptable to use sexual orientation as a ground for insults, but it is acceptable to use physical handicaps.

      Growing a spine, eh Nic?

      Actually, I don't use the word 'homosexual' as an insult when I call the evotard an "atheist homosexual". Likewise, I don't use the word 'Christian' as an insult when I call you a "spineless Christian."

      I use the word 'homosexual' to remind the evotard that the main reason that he's an atheist dirt worshipper is that he has a bone to pick with Christianity because he sees Christians as persecutors of homosexuals.

      Timothy Horton's primary motivation as a Darwinist is his homosexuality. The same is true for many if not most atheists. I personally do not give rat's arse about Horton's gender preference. I do think homosexuality is an aberration, a neurological malfunction. As such, homosexuals deserve our sympathy, not our scorn.

      On a side note, I believe that homosexuals are much more likely to be geniuses than the average heterosexual. I have seen this in the homosexual computer programmers I have worked with. We also see it in many famous homosexual musicians/composers/artists. I believe that the genetic mutations that trigger homosexuality (both male and female) are also involved in Asperger's syndrome which is associated with genius.

      One man's opinion.

      Delete
    6. Louis,

      "Actually, I don't use the word 'homosexual' as an insult when I call the evotard an "atheist homosexual". Likewise, I don't use the word 'Christian' as an insult when I call you a "spineless Christian."

      Correct me if I'm wrong, Louis, but I thought my comment was directed at ghostrider and what he had said.

      What kind of logic do you use to argue you don't use the word 'homosexual'as an insult? Such a claim is simply bizarre, to say the least. If you don't intend homosexual to be part of the insult, why then do you include it?

      As for you and your use of pejoratives, I must say you have no equal. No, that is not a compliment.

      "On a side note, I believe that homosexuals are much more likely to be geniuses than the average heterosexual."

      Palpable nonsense! And please, don't try to present a list in support of your claim.

      Delete
    7. Nic the Biblical idolater (LOL):

      Correct me if I'm wrong, Louis, but I thought my comment was directed at ghostrider and what he had said.

      Yeah, but you were making assumptions about my intentions with regard to my use of the word "homosexual" and you were wrong.

      What kind of logic do you use to argue you don't use the word 'homosexual'as an insult? Such a claim is simply bizarre, to say the least. If you don't intend homosexual to be part of the insult, why then do you include it?

      I explained why in my previous comment but, apparently it went over your head. LOL

      As for you and your use of pejoratives, I must say you have no equal. No, that is not a compliment.

      I don't care.

      "On a side note, I believe that homosexuals are much more likely to be geniuses than the average heterosexual."

      Palpable nonsense! And please, don't try to present a list in support of your claim.


      It's not a claim but an observation. And I'm pretty sure I'm correct. I have seen it many times. I strongly suspect that the percentage of homosexuals among brilliant artists is higher than in the general population.

      The reason that this bothers you is that your fundamentalist Christian education causes you to believe that homosexuality is a choice. And I'm sure you'll have Bible verses to support your belief. I, by contrast, believe it is caused by one or more genetic mutations. And yes, I, too, am a Christian.

      By the way, your mere opinion matters to me because of what again? I must have missed that part.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    8. Louis,

      "Yeah, but you were making assumptions about my intentions with regard to my use of the word "homosexual" and you were wrong."

      Guess what, Louis, it's not always about you. I was not even thinking of you when I made the comment to ghostrider.

      "I explained why in my previous comment but, apparently it went over your head."

      Your explanation was nonsense, as I said.

      "It's not a claim but an observation. And I'm pretty sure I'm correct. I have seen it many times. I strongly suspect that the percentage of homosexuals among brilliant artists is higher than in the general population."

      I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but go ahead and try to demonstrate your brilliant observation.

      "The reason that this bothers you is that your fundamentalist Christian education causes you to believe that homosexuality is a choice."

      It is, and it is also irrelevant to the fact that I don't judge anyone's talent based on their sexual orientation. I very much enjoy Elton John for example and always have. Some of the actors I enjoy the most happen to be homosexuals, such as Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi. I'm a firm believer that one's talent has no relation to their sexual orientation and I don't turn my back on that talent because I disagree with how they live their lives.

      "By the way, your mere opinion matters to me because of what again?"

      I don't really care if my opinions matter to you. I don't express them for your benefit. It is curious however, that you feel the need to tell me constantly how much you don't care about my opinions. I find that quite curious.

      Delete
    9. Nic

      I'm not accusing of anything, but just think this through. Why is it intolerant and unacceptable to use sexual orientation as a ground for insults, but it is acceptable to use physical handicaps.


      You're absolutely right Nic. My bad.

      Delete
    10. NIc,

      You don't get it. Horton and his kind feel free to personally attack other people with epithets like "IDiot, creationist, Chubbs, fruitcake, Tourette, etc." (LOL) but when someone else does the same to them, they immediately cry for their mommy and hide behind political correctness. It's a form of intimidation.

      My goal in calling any of them "atheist closet homosexuals, dirt worshippers, tree-dwelling primitive, etc." is to show the a-holes that I have no fear of them whatsoever and that I am not intimidated in any shape or form. In fact, I want to instill fear in them, if possible. They are the enemy and they are attacking my religion.

      I do not really give a rat's arse whether or not they are homosexuals but THEY do. They are willing to use it as a weapon and so am I. That's all there is to it.

      Seeing that we disagree as to what causes homosexuality, there is no point in discussing it any further. See ya later.

      Delete
    11. Louis,

      "It's a form of intimidation."

      Only if you let yourself be intimidated.

      "My goal in calling any of them "atheist closet homosexuals, dirt worshippers, tree-dwelling primitive, etc." is to show the a-holes that I have no fear of them whatsoever and that I am not intimidated in any shape or form."

      I don't think it's working, Louis.

      Delete
    12. Oh I don't know Nic. Loopy Louis has me shaking in my boots. :0 Well, not really. My wife of 22 years and our 16 year old daughter were pretty surprised to find out I was homosexual however, and the reason I chose science as a career was to meet gay men online. :D

      Delete
    13. I don't think it's working, Louis.

      Oh, it's working alright. They tried their darndest to get Cornelius to kick me off but Cornelius does not take orders from dirt worshippers. They succeeded at Uncommon Descent, which is understandable. UD depends on maintaining a certain reputation to attract advertisers and donors from the Christian community. They see me as a threat. Which is the way I like it. LOL

      They also see Cornelius as a major threat, which is why they comment here. Unfortunately for the a-holes, Cornelius also has no fear. Their only weapon is name-calling, propaganda and intimidation. But none of it works on Cornelius. It's hilarious.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    14. Horton the dirt worshipper:

      Oh I don't know Nic. Loopy Louis has me shaking in my boots. :0 Well, not really.

      Soon, the entire dirt-worshipping mafia will quake in their boots. The fall will come suddenly and without mercy. It will come from the one place you suspect the least. Wait for it.

      For my part, I'll be watching the whole thing unfold with a beer in one hand, a bag of Cheetos in the other and a smirk on my face. LOL

      My wife of 22 years and our 16 year old daughter were pretty surprised to find out I was homosexual however, and the reason I chose science as a career was to meet gay men online. :D

      No. You chose Darwinism, not science. You did because it was the best way for you to attack those goddamn Christians who persecute homosexuals. If it hadn't been for the stigma they have placed on homosexuals over the years, you would have come out of the closet. So now, you're stuck in a heterosexual relationship. Why? Because you're scared.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
    15. But Loopy Louis, you're the one with this oral fixation where you constantly have to put a long cylindrical object in your mouth and suck. No wonder your brain is fried.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. Horton the closet homosexual atheist:

      But Loopy Louis, you're the one with this oral fixation where you constantly have to put a long cylindrical object in your mouth and suck.

      See what I'm saying? This is precisely the kind of language a closet male homosexual would use. If science was really your main motivation, you would not be here. I know what motivates you. You don't fool me, Horton. I've been observing a homosexual for years and he talks just like you. Ya'll can't help it. It's in your DNA.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    18. Nic: "I'm not accusing of anything, but just think this through. Why is it intolerant and unacceptable to use sexual orientation as a ground for insults, but it is acceptable to use physical handicaps."

      I realize that I am late in responding but, just for the record (as Gardon Mullings-KairosFocus) would say, I don't believe that either are acceptable.

      Delete
    19. Mapou: "Oh, it's working alright. They tried their darndest to get Cornelius to kick me off but Cornelius does not take orders from dirt worshippers."

      I can't speak for GR but I would like Cornelius to kick you out in order to elevate the discussion here to one where mature adults can have a civil discussion without being constantly interrupted by invictive laden, homophobic comments from an immature troll.

      "They succeeded at Uncommon Descent, which is understandable. "

      Is self-delusion a normal defence mechanism for you? The people at UD who complained about your childish behaviour, and who kicked you out, were the ID proponents Gordon (KairosFocus) Mullings and Denyse.

      "They also see Cornelius as a major threat, which is why they comment here."

      A threat to what? Certainly not evolutionary science.

      "Unfortunately for the a-holes, Cornelius also has no fear."

      I don't know why Cornelius continues to let you drag his site into the sewer but it certainly has nothing to do with bravery. My opinion is that he allows it because your presence increases the number of comments he gets and he somehow thinks that quantity is more important than quality.

      But you claim that your homosexual accusations are not intended as an insult to homosexuals. But I also note that when you talk about your partner being homosexual that you insist on qualifying him as your "business" partner. Why is that? Freudian? If you are so sure about your intent, why don't you show your homosexual partner your comments here and let us know how he responds.

      Delete
    20. Bill the dirt worshipper and closet homosexual is whining for his mommy again.

      A threat to what? Certainly not evolutionary science.

      Evolutionary science is an oxymoron. Evolutionary biologists are either crackpots or con artists or both. Not to mention stupid.

      But you claim that your homosexual accusations are not intended as an insult to homosexuals. But I also note that when you talk about your partner being homosexual that you insist on qualifying him as your "business" partner. Why is that? Freudian? If you are so sure about your intent, why don't you show your homosexual partner your comments here and let us know how he responds.

      Spoken just like a true closet homosexual with a persecution complex. Homosexuals constantly project their homosexuality on others.

      Look, jackass. I use my real name when I comment here. If my business partner and my neighbor care, they can Google my name and find out for themselves. And I'm sure they do. And guess what? I don't care. They know my position on homosexuality because I tell them. I believe it's a neurological disorder caused by any number of mutations.

      But I will not tolerate you or anybody else to use your homosexuality to attack my religion just because you have a bone to pick with homophobic Christians.

      You Christophobic atheist, dirt-worshipping closet homosexuals pretend to be doing science but your real goal is to attack Christianity. You are here because you know that Cornelius is a Christian. You think Darwinism can succeed in destroying Christianity but you are so deluded. You are a pathetic bunch of gutless and brainless worms.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    21. Mapou: "Look, jackass. I use my real name when I comment here."

      I gues your attention span is as short as your intelligence. I have state my name numerous times. Here it is again

      Kevin Middlebrook

      Cornelius can confirm this as he will have my email.

      Delete
    22. I don't care.

      By the way, where are the non-gay atheists? Why are the atheist comments here written mostly by two atheist homosexuals who pretend to be otherwise? Is there such a thing as a Darwinist who does not have a hidden religious/political motive?

      Delete
  4. Let the beat down continue! Just heard a very recent interview with Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a retired geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Another devastating blow to Darwinism. Loving it!

    Here's the link:

    http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/idtf/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean let the beat off continue. Mental masturbation is pretty much the only exercise you ID-Creationists get.

      Delete
    2. The only thing brain-dead, dirt worshipping Darwinists know is to pound sand.

      ahahaha...AHAHAHA...ahahaha...

      Delete
  5. And here I thought that Marine Iguanas were a better example http://bio.research.ucsc.edu/~barrylab/Lisa/PDFs/Hazardchap06proof.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  6. Evolution Rethink...an idea whose time has come (and is actually long overdue). Time to start re-thinking about your absurd secular religion, primates.

    The hammer-fists just keep on coming! Here's the link:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/royal-societys-fall-evolution-rethink-meet-is-progress-in-science/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nic: "Why is it intolerant and unacceptable to use sexual orientation as a ground for insults, but it is acceptable to use physical handicaps."

    Professor Hunter, why is it okay to call your opponents, "Fat, drunk and stupid" if you use a snippet from a movie instead of saying it yourself?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave,

      "Professor Hunter, why is it okay to call your opponents, "Fat, drunk and stupid" if you use a snippet from a movie instead of saying it yourself?"

      I may be wrong, but I took Dr. Hunter's use of the phrase in an anthropomorphic sense regards evolutionary thought.

      Delete
    2. Anthropomorphic doesn't even make sense. Let's let Professor Hunter answer the question. I'm particularly interested in how he squares it with Matthew 5:22.

      Delete
    3. Dave,

      "Anthropomorphic doesn't even make sense."

      Sorry, I forgot, you know everything. Pardon my ignorance.

      Delete
  8. Darwinism under seige! I love it. Here's the link:

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/04/intelligent_des_25102792.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Evolutionary Theory will collapse into dust any day now.

      Any day now...

      any day...

      real soon...

      soon...

      :D

      Delete
    2. What evolutionary theory? Why can't anyone link to it?

      Delete
    3. No theory there. You must be an ignorant troll.

      Delete
    4. Sorry Chubs but they don't make a booklet your level, Evolution for Creationist a-holes. You'll have to stay ignorant.

      Delete
    5. LoL! The ignorance is all yours. Thank you for proving my point- that no one can link to this alleged theory of evolution.

      Delete
  9. Growing Chorus of Dissent. I'm loving it! Here's the link:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/denton-on-the-growing-chorus-of-dissent/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you ever do anything but C&P links to Uncommonly Dense and Evolution Spews and Snooze?

      Have you ever had an original thought in your life?

      Delete
  10. I am very intrigued by some of the responses found to this blog post.

    Would it be at all possible that some of you share your insights on this site?

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/evolution-of-finch-beaks/#comments

    Frankly, those lingering few sceptics of "Darwinism" are an embarrassment to the Theist cause and have only succeeded in rendering anti-evolutionists such as Professor Hunter a "laughing stock".

    That is most unfortunate and most unfair.

    The moderators on TheScepticalZone are very professional and prevent the malicious mud-slinging so often prevalent elsewhere.

    Motto: "...address the post and not the poster". Sadly, the posters criticizing Evolution on that site are not the same calibre as found here and have effectively done harm to the cause.

    I would be very eager to see some present knock the stuffing out of those over-confident Darwinists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems the Creationists here have decided it's better to avoid TSZ and appear a laughing stock than post there and remove all doubt.

      Delete
    2. LOL. Being the laughing stock among dirt worshippers is a badge of honor, Mr. Evotardius Maximus. TSZ is a den of superstitious mental midgets and spineless pseudoscientists.

      ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

      Delete
    3. TSZ is run by liars perpetuating lies.

      Sadly, the posters criticizing Evolution on that site are not the same calibre as found here and have effectively done harm to the cause.

      You are welcome to your opinion but it appears it is an uneducated opinion.

      Delete
  11. Any rebuttal to this post would be greatly appreciated:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/evolution-of-finch-beaks/comment-page-1/#comment-123132

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The TSZ ilk cannot account for finches. They have nothing to account for eukaryotes and metazoans. And they have no idea if happenstance changes can account for the differing finches.

      So what is there to rebut? "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"- Hitchens

      Delete
    2. LOL! Fat Joke Gallien is mad because he's the only person ever banned from TSZ. That was for posting links to porn. Even with that the owner of TSZ let him come back with his sock puppet 'Frankie".

      Fat Joke Gallien isn't very bright.

      Delete
    3. LoL! Timmy TuTu is a pathetic little liar. But thank you for proving my point- that your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing birds.

      Delete
    4. BTW The whole truth was banned from TSZ.

      Delete
  12. uhmmm... anybody else care to respond on TSZ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one cares about TSZ. That is because no one at TSZ can support unguided evolution and they can only attack strawman versions of ID

      Delete
    2. Shay:

      The notion that the difference between finches is comparable to the difference between the human and chimp is, as you put it, a laughing stock. You will always have evolutionists. Do not expect them to pay heed to the science.

      Delete