Skip to comments.

Ann Coulter: LIBERALS' VIEW OF DARWIN UNABLE TO EVOLVE ("The dog ate our fossils...")

AnnCoulter.com ^ | August 31, 2011 | Ann Coulter

Posted on by RonDog





LIBERALS' VIEW OF DARWIN UNABLE TO EVOLVE

August 31, 2011 Amid the hoots at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry for saying there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, the strongest evidence for Darwinism presented by these soi-disant rationalists was a 9-year-old boy quoted in The New York Times.



After his mother had pushed him in front of Perry on the campaign trail and made him ask if Perry believed in evolution, the trained seal beamed at his Wicked Witch of the West mother, saying, "Evolution, I think, is correct!"



That's the most extended discussion of Darwin's theory to appear in the mainstream media in a quarter-century. More people know the precepts of kabala than know the basic elements of Darwinism.



There's a reason the Darwin cult prefers catcalls to argument, even with a 9-year-old at the helm of their debate team.



Darwin's theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the "fittest" to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.



The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.



Otherwise, the mutations aren't random, they are deliberate -- and then you get into all the hocus-pocus about "intelligent design" and will probably start speaking in tongues and going to NASCAR races.



We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record -- for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)



But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets.") Read More



TOPICS:

Culture/Society

Editorial

News/Current Events

Politics/Elections

KEYWORDS:

anncoulter

coulter

darwin

rickperry

Sorry that this is posted so late. It appears that Syncro is "on the road" with the Tea Party Express tour, and unable to fulfill his regular weekly posting duties...



To: Ann Coulter; Syncro; knews_hound; jellybean; Rummyfan

ping







To: RonDog

There is more than sufficient evidence for evolution, as originally described by Darwin, and as subsequently developed and improved by several generations of scientists. Intelligent Design is singularly undeserving of its own name.



by 4 posted onby Oceander (The phrase "good enough for government work" is not meant as a compliment)

To: RonDog

I’ve been posting this for years on FR. The Darwinists here won’t ever admit that the fossil record only shows the advancement for evolution, and not the failures.



by 5 posted onby Carling (DeMint to Obama: I want to read the bill, not listen to talking points off a TelePrompter.)

To: Oceander

Darwin doubted his on theories late in his life, since he could never properly explain the origin of life through his own fossil record. You can’t tell me scientifically how life was originated, either, nor can you replicate it in a lab. I’m not a creationist, by the way. I’m an agnostic on how life was formed.



by 6 posted onby Carling (DeMint to Obama: I want to read the bill, not listen to talking points off a TelePrompter.)

To: Oceander

There is more than sufficient evidence for evolution, as originally described by Darwin, and as subsequently developed and improved by several generations of scientists. Sorry, but no. Darwinism is essentially one huge, scientifically-autistic self-contained fact space that relies on itself to reinforce itself (i.e. circular reasoning). And don't even get me started on the absolute idiocy of believing in abiogenesis.



To: Oceander

Two words: punctuated equilibrium



by 8 posted onby sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")

To: sargon

Two words: punctuated equilibrium



Absolutely.



by 9 posted onby Oceander (The phrase "good enough for government work" is not meant as a compliment)

To: RonDog

Excellent article. Both of my brothers are Darwinians and this article describes them to a T.



To: Oceander

I’m able to stomach the pseudo-science of creationism/intelligent design on our side of the fence because it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.



by 11 posted onby GunRunner (***Not associated with any criminal actions by the ATF***)

To: Carling

You cant tell me scientifically how life was originated, either, nor can you replicate it in a lab. Has nothing to do with evolution.



by 12 posted onby GunRunner (***Not associated with any criminal actions by the ATF***)

To: GunRunner

Im able to stomach the pseudo-science of creationism/intelligent design on our side of the fence because it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.



So you'd rather be told that what ain't so, is so? If that's the case, then how would you know if they were picking your pockets or not?



by 13 posted onby Oceander (The phrase "good enough for government work" is not meant as a compliment)

From anncoulter.com August 31, 2011, 11:22 PM COULTER TV: - WED, 8/31/11: FNC'S HANNITY, 9PM AND

RED EYE, 3AM



To: Oceander

Isn't punctuated equilibrium the explanation that was concocted in order to explain the general lack of transitional fossils in the geological record? Just asking, from a layman's perspective...



by 15 posted onby sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")

To: Oceander

There is more than sufficient evidence for evolution, as originally described by Darwin, and as subsequently developed and improved by several generations of scientists. Intelligent Design is singularly undeserving of its own name. There is as much evidence of Darwin's TOE as there is evidence for man made globull warming. The TOE is stuck out in the midst of a baked lake bed with no beginning and only a mirage as their end.



To: Oceander; sargon

I once saw that idiot Shmuley Boteach in a Crevo debate where he claimed that punctuated equilibrium was a form of intelligent design, and that Stephen Jay Gould did not believe in evolution.



by 17 posted onby GunRunner (***Not associated with any criminal actions by the ATF***)

To: RonDog

I think it was in Ben Stein’s documentary on evolution/intelligent design that I saw an interview with a well credentialed DNA research scientist. He stated that the more scientists understood with advancing research, the more evident it became to them that the incredible complexity of genetic codes made it virtually unbelievable that random genetic mutations and survival of the fittest accounted for the existence of all the many species. He noted that there was convincing proof of evolution within a species, but between the species—not conceivably possible. For instance there is a wide DNA gap between a crab and a giraffe. They are probably not descended from the same ancestor. He emphasized that he wasn’t advocating any particular religious viewpoint, just the well supported scientific observation that Darwin’s theory doesn’t come close to explaining the existence of all the many different species.



To: Oceander

Exactly how did species evolve?



by 19 posted onby wastedyears (Of course you realize, this means war.)

To: RonDog

...If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists.



Unlike high school biology teachers lying to your children about evolution, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record ought to show if his theory were correct. He said there should be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps."



But far from showing gradual change with a species slowly developing novel characteristics and eventually becoming another species, as Darwin hypothesized, the fossil record showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing.



Darwin's response was to say: Start looking! He blamed a fossil record that contradicted his theory on the "extreme imperfection of the geological record."





Here's MORE from www.anncoulter.com

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson