| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 50:04:52 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,305 |
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Darwin confeesed
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
....
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Darwin confeesed on his DEATH BED that he'd had sex with the Pope.
On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again:-a Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
....
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
You can always talk about evolution WITHOUT human names! Just focus on
what he said rather than judging his personalities and characters.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
Darwin confeesed on his DEATH BED that he'd had sex with the Pope.
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!
The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built
up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle"
gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to
their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these
larger muscles.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Darwin confeesed on his DEATH BED that he'd had sex with the Pope.
JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Darwin confeesed on his DEATH BED that he'd had sex with the Pope.
So Darwin wasn't writing about "Evolution," though he did eventually
use the term, he was writing about Common Descent.
He got Common Descent through his grandfather, who wasn't a moron
like Darwin. It wasn't Darwin's idea at all.
"Evolution" had always been a part of Common Descent. If a goat and
a whale share a common ancestor than obviously one or both had to
have "Evolved" since the time of that ancestor. Even so, Darwin wasn't
clever enough to "Get it."
The Soviet Union under Stalin banned evolution...
On 16/8/2025 10:59 am, JTEM wrote:
So Darwin wasn't writing about "Evolution," though he did eventually
use the term, he was writing about Common Descent.
He got Common Descent through his grandfather, who wasn't a moron
like Darwin. It wasn't Darwin's idea at all.
"Evolution" had always been a part of Common Descent. If a goat and
a whale share a common ancestor than obviously one or both had to
have "Evolved" since the time of that ancestor. Even so, Darwin wasn't
clever enough to "Get it."
The Soviet Union under Stalin banned evolution...
You are mixing things happened in different time periods!! When Darwin
wrote about evolution, Soviet Union didn't exist and Stalin was not yet
born. Back then the Holy Church had authories in everything.
JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
God is real and he's going to fuck you up good.
All the Abrahammic religions are bullshit invented by ignorant
On 17/8/2025 4:55 am, JTEM wrote:
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!
The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built
up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle"
gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to
their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these
larger muscles.
That's not what evolution about.
On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:
For your curiosity, do a Google Search for "darwin personality"!!
I've said it before and I'll say it again:-a Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Why would someone talk about things one does not believe in? Like you? :)
On 16/8/2025 10:59 am, JTEM wrote:
So Darwin wasn't writing about "Evolution," though he did eventually
use the term, he was writing about Common Descent.
He got Common Descent through his grandfather, who wasn't a moron
like Darwin. It wasn't Darwin's idea at all.
"Evolution" had always been a part of Common Descent. If a goat and
a whale share a common ancestor than obviously one or both had to
have "Evolved" since the time of that ancestor. Even so, Darwin wasn't
clever enough to "Get it."
The Soviet Union under Stalin banned evolution...
You are mixing things happened in different time periods!!
Ron wrote:
Darwin confeesed on his DEATH BED that he'd had sex with the Pope.
Trump's father confessed on his death bed that he'd had repeated anal sex >with his son Donald.
On 17/8/2025 4:55 am, JTEM wrote:
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!
The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built
up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle"
gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to
their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these
larger muscles.
That's not what evolution about. It's a combination genetic mutation and >natural selection!
The animal happened to have lots of leg muscles (GM), which favored its >survival (NS)! Read Wikipedia and Google Search about principles of >evolution.
JTEM will be in a better position to know, but I think he (I'm
guessing JTEM is male) isn't disputing evolution. Only that Darwin
believe in and/or promote it.
Darwin didn't use the word evolution, but his writings make it
clear it is the concept he was promoting. JTEM can deny this reality,
but it will remain reality.
Well. In the answer that I gave before you even asked, I explained how
COMMON it is for people to misuse and misunderstand words. And I may
not have been entirely explicit but, Darwin didn't say "Evolution." Not
at first: "he did eventually use the term."
But it's not really important. The fact is that Darwin did not believe
in evolution, that the Darwin passed down to you is a myth. And we know
this is true because he believed the same things that the people who
OUTLAWED evolution believed.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Oh, I know, you had a different thought driven into your skull
so you refuse to entertain any other idea.
You're such a *Good* dog... Pavlov's Dog...
The communist world under Stalin and later under Mao BANNED
evolution. Yes, you could go to prison for teaching evolution
of basing any science on it.
The Nazis had their "Master Race," very true, but long before
that all of the west had it's Eugenics! And, yes, the communist
world did see this as proof that "evolution" was a western
imperialist plot to enforce some social and economic hierarchy.
But, that hierarchy. Very bad.
But, here's the thing: The communist world would NOT have had
much is any problem with Darwin himself! Because, as I said,
just in case you weren't paying attention; Darwin did NOT
believe in evolution!
Darwin's one and only "Theory" -- if we can call it that, though
technically it was never a "Theory" -- wasn't evolution, it was
PANGENESIS!
Google it, assuming you have computer access...
Darwin, being a complete fraud, a flatulent racist & moron, didn't
entirely come up with this "Pangenesis" idea on his own. In fact,
he came up with NOTHING on his own. Like everything else, he had
plagiarized his pagenesis from "Lamarkism." And when Stalin banned
that oh so imperialistic "Evolution" thing in the communist world,
what he replaced it with was lysenkoism.
NOTE: Lysenkoism was a cheap copy of Lamarkism, just like Darwin's >Pangenesis. So that goddamn idiot Darwin didn't even believe in
evolution! No, he was in full agreement with the people who would
later BAN evolution...
It gets worse.
Darwin's topic wasn't even "Evolution" anyway. He was writing
about COMMON DESCENT. Now this COMMON DESCENT was a very old idea,
Darwin was introduced to it through his grandfather, who was a
notable proponent! But some sources will tell you that COMMON
DESCENT stretches back into ancient times. However far back you
want to put it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you can
place it back well before Darwin AND "Evolution" had always been
a part of it.
THINK: If a goat and a whale share a common ancestor, as COMMON
DESCENT insists, then obviously one or both had to have EVOLVED
a great deal since the time of that common ancestor.
It gets worse.
Google The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance. These would be named
for Gregor Mendel the man who effectively cracked the code of
inheritance. He contacted Darwin, this Mendel, AND Darwin was
exposed to Mendel's work in the literature of the day. And Darwin
was such a goddamn jackass that he dismissed Mendel, or just plain
ignored him AND AFTERWARDS came out with his pseudo scientific
"Pangenesis" crap!
Get it? Darwin was handed the answer, threw it away and came up
with idiocy instead....
It gets worse.
Darwin appears to have "Lost" the communication sent to him by
Mendel. And he seemed to have "Lost" letters sent to him from
Wallace, a man he appears to have stolen much from, including
"Natural Selection."
Yes, Darwin "Lost" the evidence against him...
IT TOOK 20 YEARS FOR THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD TO RECOVER
FROM DARWIN!
By becoming the name & face of naturalism, and throwing away
Mendel and his cracking the mystery of inheritance, science lost
20 years! It took that long for the English Speaking world to
discover the science lost to it by Darwin's idiocy...
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
READ YOUR DARWIN GOSPELS!
Wallace! Wallace would have still published!
And, again, without Darwin becoming the face of naturalism and
throwing aside Mendel, Mendel's work would likely gained
prominence in the English Speaking world....
There is literally nothing to gain by maintaining the myth of
Darwin. Stop settling. Stop accepting brain manure because some >self-appointed ruling class ordered you to.
Darwin didn't use the word evolution, but his writings make it
clear it is the concept he was promoting.
JTEM can deny this reality,
but it will remain reality.
On 17/8/2025 6:42 pm, Kenito Benito wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a JTEM will be in a better position to know, but I think he (I'm
guessing JTEM is male) isn't disputing evolution. Only that Darwin
believe in and/or promote it.
-a-a-a-a-a Darwin didn't use the word evolution, but his writings make it
clear it is the concept he was promoting. JTEM can deny this reality,
but it will remain reality.
I did study about biology, but textbooks don't talk much about Darwin as
a person.
On 17/8/2025 1:53 pm, JTEM wrote:
Well. In the answer that I gave before you even asked, I explained how
COMMON it is for people to misuse and misunderstand words. And I may
not have been entirely explicit but, Darwin didn't say "Evolution." Not
at first:-a "he did eventually use the term."
But it's not really important. The fact is that Darwin did not believe
in evolution, that the Darwin passed down to you is a myth. And we know
this is true because he believed the same things that the people who
OUTLAWED evolution believed.
What I said was from the textbooks and notes I read.
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 21:29:34 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107omu0$1etcv$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Oh, I know, you had a different thought driven into your skull
so you refuse to entertain any other idea.
You're such a *Good* dog... Pavlov's Dog...
The communist world under Stalin and later under Mao BANNED
evolution. Yes, you could go to prison for teaching evolution
of basing any science on it.
The Nazis had their "Master Race," very true, but long before
that all of the west had it's Eugenics! And, yes, the communist
world did see this as proof that "evolution" was a western
imperialist plot to enforce some social and economic hierarchy.
But, that hierarchy. Very bad.
But, here's the thing: The communist world would NOT have had
much is any problem with Darwin himself! Because, as I said,
just in case you weren't paying attention; Darwin did NOT
believe in evolution!
Darwin's one and only "Theory" -- if we can call it that, though
technically it was never a "Theory" -- wasn't evolution, it was
PANGENESIS!
Google it, assuming you have computer access...
Darwin, being a complete fraud, a flatulent racist & moron, didn't
entirely come up with this "Pangenesis" idea on his own. In fact,
he came up with NOTHING on his own. Like everything else, he had
plagiarized his pagenesis from "Lamarkism." And when Stalin banned
that oh so imperialistic "Evolution" thing in the communist world,
what he replaced it with was lysenkoism.
NOTE: Lysenkoism was a cheap copy of Lamarkism, just like Darwin's
Pangenesis. So that goddamn idiot Darwin didn't even believe in
evolution! No, he was in full agreement with the people who would
later BAN evolution...
It gets worse.
Darwin's topic wasn't even "Evolution" anyway. He was writing
about COMMON DESCENT. Now this COMMON DESCENT was a very old idea,
Darwin was introduced to it through his grandfather, who was a
notable proponent! But some sources will tell you that COMMON
DESCENT stretches back into ancient times. However far back you
want to put it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you can
place it back well before Darwin AND "Evolution" had always been
a part of it.
THINK: If a goat and a whale share a common ancestor, as COMMON
DESCENT insists, then obviously one or both had to have EVOLVED
a great deal since the time of that common ancestor.
It gets worse.
Google The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance. These would be named
for Gregor Mendel the man who effectively cracked the code of
inheritance. He contacted Darwin, this Mendel, AND Darwin was
exposed to Mendel's work in the literature of the day. And Darwin
was such a goddamn jackass that he dismissed Mendel, or just plain
ignored him AND AFTERWARDS came out with his pseudo scientific
"Pangenesis" crap!
Get it? Darwin was handed the answer, threw it away and came up
with idiocy instead....
It gets worse.
Darwin appears to have "Lost" the communication sent to him by
Mendel. And he seemed to have "Lost" letters sent to him from
Wallace, a man he appears to have stolen much from, including
"Natural Selection."
Yes, Darwin "Lost" the evidence against him...
IT TOOK 20 YEARS FOR THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD TO RECOVER
FROM DARWIN!
By becoming the name & face of naturalism, and throwing away
Mendel and his cracking the mystery of inheritance, science lost
20 years! It took that long for the English Speaking world to
discover the science lost to it by Darwin's idiocy...
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
READ YOUR DARWIN GOSPELS!
Wallace! Wallace would have still published!
And, again, without Darwin becoming the face of naturalism and
throwing aside Mendel, Mendel's work would likely gained
prominence in the English Speaking world....
There is literally nothing to gain by maintaining the myth of
Darwin. Stop settling. Stop accepting brain manure because some
self-appointed ruling class ordered you to.
Yet evolution is an integral part of a number of sciences.
I
will go along with that rather than the occasional idiot who
writes long and useless dialogs trying to prove differently.
On 8/16/25 1:08 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again:a Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
....
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
You can always talk about evolution WITHOUT human names! Just focus on
what he said rather than judging his personalities and characters.
Huh?!?
Did you not read what you're replying to?
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!
The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built
up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle"
gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to
their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these
larger muscles.
So my advice to you is to STOP believing everything you're told and
to START investigating things for yourself.
Pangenesis
THAT was Darwin's one and only "Theory," and he came out with it AFTER
Mendel had already come up with the right answer!
On 8/16/25 9:23 PM, Attilia wrote:
JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
God is real and he's going to fuck you up good.
All the Abrahammic religions are bullshit invented by ignorant
What on earth are you pretending this to have to do with Darwin,
and why won't you take the psychiatric drugs that have been
prescribed to you?
On 8/17/25 9:55 AM, Attila wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 21:29:34 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107omu0$1etcv$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Oh, I know, you had a different thought driven into your skull
so you refuse to entertain any other idea.
You're such a *Good* dog... Pavlov's Dog...
The communist world under Stalin and later under Mao BANNED
evolution. Yes, you could go to prison for teaching evolution
of basing any science on it.
The Nazis had their "Master Race," very true, but long before
that all of the west had it's Eugenics! And, yes, the communist
world did see this as proof that "evolution" was a western
imperialist plot to enforce some social and economic hierarchy.
But, that hierarchy. Very bad.
But, here's the thing: The communist world would NOT have had
much is any problem with Darwin himself! Because, as I said,
just in case you weren't paying attention; Darwin did NOT
believe in evolution!
Darwin's one and only "Theory" -- if we can call it that, though
technically it was never a "Theory" -- wasn't evolution, it was
PANGENESIS!
Google it, assuming you have computer access...
Darwin, being a complete fraud, a flatulent racist & moron, didn't
entirely come up with this "Pangenesis" idea on his own. In fact,
he came up with NOTHING on his own. Like everything else, he had
plagiarized his pagenesis from "Lamarkism." And when Stalin banned
that oh so imperialistic "Evolution" thing in the communist world,
what he replaced it with was lysenkoism.
NOTE: Lysenkoism was a cheap copy of Lamarkism, just like Darwin's
Pangenesis. So that goddamn idiot Darwin didn't even believe in
evolution! No, he was in full agreement with the people who would
later BAN evolution...
It gets worse.
Darwin's topic wasn't even "Evolution" anyway. He was writing
about COMMON DESCENT. Now this COMMON DESCENT was a very old idea,
Darwin was introduced to it through his grandfather, who was a
notable proponent! But some sources will tell you that COMMON
DESCENT stretches back into ancient times. However far back you
want to put it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you can
place it back well before Darwin AND "Evolution" had always been
a part of it.
THINK: If a goat and a whale share a common ancestor, as COMMON
DESCENT insists, then obviously one or both had to have EVOLVED
a great deal since the time of that common ancestor.
It gets worse.
Google The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance. These would be named
for Gregor Mendel the man who effectively cracked the code of
inheritance. He contacted Darwin, this Mendel, AND Darwin was
exposed to Mendel's work in the literature of the day. And Darwin
was such a goddamn jackass that he dismissed Mendel, or just plain
ignored him AND AFTERWARDS came out with his pseudo scientific
"Pangenesis" crap!
Get it? Darwin was handed the answer, threw it away and came up
with idiocy instead....
It gets worse.
Darwin appears to have "Lost" the communication sent to him by
Mendel. And he seemed to have "Lost" letters sent to him from
Wallace, a man he appears to have stolen much from, including
"Natural Selection."
Yes, Darwin "Lost" the evidence against him...
IT TOOK 20 YEARS FOR THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD TO RECOVER
FROM DARWIN!
By becoming the name & face of naturalism, and throwing away
Mendel and his cracking the mystery of inheritance, science lost
20 years! It took that long for the English Speaking world to
discover the science lost to it by Darwin's idiocy...
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
READ YOUR DARWIN GOSPELS!
Wallace! Wallace would have still published!
And, again, without Darwin becoming the face of naturalism and
throwing aside Mendel, Mendel's work would likely gained
prominence in the English Speaking world....
There is literally nothing to gain by maintaining the myth of
Darwin. Stop settling. Stop accepting brain manure because some
self-appointed ruling class ordered you to.
Yet evolution is an integral part of a number of sciences.
Why the "Yet?" The topic isn't evolution, it's Darwin. Darwin is
a myth. What you think you know about Darwin is a falsehood.
I
will go along with that rather than the occasional idiot who
writes long and useless dialogs trying to prove differently.
You need to Google the term: Reading Comprehension.
Under the circumstances, the results are not promising but
you would gain points for the effort.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 16:55:04 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107qr78$1tvu3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/16/25 1:08 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again:-a Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
....
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
You can always talk about evolution WITHOUT human names! Just focus on
what he said rather than judging his personalities and characters.
Huh?!?
Did you not read what you're replying to?
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!
The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built
up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle"
gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to
their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these
larger muscles.
So my advice to you is to STOP believing everything you're told and
to START investigating things for yourself.
Pangenesis
THAT was Darwin's one and only "Theory," and he came out with it AFTER
Mendel had already come up with the right answer!
Evolution exists.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:-a Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Oh, I know, you had a different thought driven into your skull
so you refuse to entertain any other idea.
You're such a *Good* dog... Pavlov's Dog...
The communist world under Stalin and later under Mao BANNED
evolution. Yes, you could go to prison for teaching evolution
of basing any science on it.
The Nazis had their "Master Race," very true, but long before
that all of the west had it's Eugenics! And, yes, the communist
world did see this as proof that "evolution" was a western
imperialist plot to enforce some social and economic hierarchy.
But, that hierarchy. Very bad.
But, here's the thing:-a The communist world would NOT have had
much is any problem with Darwin himself! Because, as I said,
just in case you weren't paying attention; Darwin did NOT
believe in evolution!
Darwin's one and only "Theory" -- if we can call it that, though
technically it was never a "Theory" -- wasn't evolution, it was
PANGENESIS!
Google it, assuming you have computer access...
Darwin, being a complete fraud, a flatulent racist & moron, didn't
entirely come up with this "Pangenesis" idea on his own. In fact,
he came up with NOTHING on his own. Like everything else, he had
plagiarized his pagenesis from "Lamarkism." And when Stalin banned
that oh so imperialistic "Evolution" thing in the communist world,
what he replaced it with was lysenkoism.
NOTE:-a Lysenkoism was a cheap copy of Lamarkism, just like Darwin's Pangenesis. So that goddamn idiot Darwin didn't even believe in
evolution! No, he was in full agreement with the people who would
later BAN evolution...
It gets worse.
Darwin's topic wasn't even "Evolution" anyway. He was writing
about COMMON DESCENT. Now this COMMON DESCENT was a very old idea,
Darwin was introduced to it through his grandfather, who was a
notable proponent! But some sources will tell you that COMMON
DESCENT stretches back into ancient times. However far back you
want to put it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you can
place it back well before Darwin AND "Evolution" had always been
a part of it.
THINK:-a If a goat and a whale share a common ancestor, as COMMON
DESCENT insists, then obviously one or both had to have EVOLVED
a great deal since the time of that common ancestor.
It gets worse.
Google The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance. These would be named
for Gregor Mendel the man who effectively cracked the code of
inheritance. He contacted Darwin, this Mendel, AND Darwin was
exposed to Mendel's work in the literature of the day. And Darwin
was such a goddamn jackass that he dismissed Mendel, or just plain
ignored him AND AFTERWARDS came out with his pseudo scientific
"Pangenesis" crap!
Get it?-a Darwin was handed the answer, threw it away and came up
with idiocy instead....
It gets worse.
Darwin appears to have "Lost" the communication sent to him by
Mendel. And he seemed to have "Lost" letters sent to him from
Wallace, a man he appears to have stolen much from, including
"Natural Selection."
Yes, Darwin "Lost" the evidence against him...
IT TOOK 20 YEARS FOR THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD TO RECOVER
FROM DARWIN!
By becoming the name & face of naturalism, and throwing away
Mendel and his cracking the mystery of inheritance, science lost
20 years! It took that long for the English Speaking world to
discover the science lost to it by Darwin's idiocy...
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
READ YOUR DARWIN GOSPELS!
Wallace!-a Wallace would have still published!
And, again, without Darwin becoming the face of naturalism and
throwing aside Mendel, Mendel's work would likely gained
prominence in the English Speaking world....
There is literally nothing to gain by maintaining the myth of
Darwin. Stop settling. Stop accepting brain manure because some self-appointed ruling class ordered you to.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 10:21:16 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107sogt$2bbjn$4@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 9:55 AM, Attila wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 21:29:34 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107omu0$1etcv$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Oh, I know, you had a different thought driven into your skull
so you refuse to entertain any other idea.
You're such a *Good* dog... Pavlov's Dog...
The communist world under Stalin and later under Mao BANNED
evolution. Yes, you could go to prison for teaching evolution
of basing any science on it.
The Nazis had their "Master Race," very true, but long before
that all of the west had it's Eugenics! And, yes, the communist
world did see this as proof that "evolution" was a western
imperialist plot to enforce some social and economic hierarchy.
But, that hierarchy. Very bad.
But, here's the thing: The communist world would NOT have had
much is any problem with Darwin himself! Because, as I said,
just in case you weren't paying attention; Darwin did NOT
believe in evolution!
Darwin's one and only "Theory" -- if we can call it that, though
technically it was never a "Theory" -- wasn't evolution, it was
PANGENESIS!
Google it, assuming you have computer access...
Darwin, being a complete fraud, a flatulent racist & moron, didn't
entirely come up with this "Pangenesis" idea on his own. In fact,
he came up with NOTHING on his own. Like everything else, he had
plagiarized his pagenesis from "Lamarkism." And when Stalin banned
that oh so imperialistic "Evolution" thing in the communist world,
what he replaced it with was lysenkoism.
NOTE: Lysenkoism was a cheap copy of Lamarkism, just like Darwin's
Pangenesis. So that goddamn idiot Darwin didn't even believe in
evolution! No, he was in full agreement with the people who would
later BAN evolution...
It gets worse.
Darwin's topic wasn't even "Evolution" anyway. He was writing
about COMMON DESCENT. Now this COMMON DESCENT was a very old idea,
Darwin was introduced to it through his grandfather, who was a
notable proponent! But some sources will tell you that COMMON
DESCENT stretches back into ancient times. However far back you
want to put it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you can
place it back well before Darwin AND "Evolution" had always been
a part of it.
THINK: If a goat and a whale share a common ancestor, as COMMON
DESCENT insists, then obviously one or both had to have EVOLVED
a great deal since the time of that common ancestor.
It gets worse.
Google The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance. These would be named
for Gregor Mendel the man who effectively cracked the code of
inheritance. He contacted Darwin, this Mendel, AND Darwin was
exposed to Mendel's work in the literature of the day. And Darwin
was such a goddamn jackass that he dismissed Mendel, or just plain
ignored him AND AFTERWARDS came out with his pseudo scientific
"Pangenesis" crap!
Get it? Darwin was handed the answer, threw it away and came up
with idiocy instead....
It gets worse.
Darwin appears to have "Lost" the communication sent to him by
Mendel. And he seemed to have "Lost" letters sent to him from
Wallace, a man he appears to have stolen much from, including
"Natural Selection."
Yes, Darwin "Lost" the evidence against him...
IT TOOK 20 YEARS FOR THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD TO RECOVER
FROM DARWIN!
By becoming the name & face of naturalism, and throwing away
Mendel and his cracking the mystery of inheritance, science lost
20 years! It took that long for the English Speaking world to
discover the science lost to it by Darwin's idiocy...
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
READ YOUR DARWIN GOSPELS!
Wallace! Wallace would have still published!
And, again, without Darwin becoming the face of naturalism and
throwing aside Mendel, Mendel's work would likely gained
prominence in the English Speaking world....
There is literally nothing to gain by maintaining the myth of
Darwin. Stop settling. Stop accepting brain manure because some
self-appointed ruling class ordered you to.
Yet evolution is an integral part of a number of sciences.
Why the "Yet?" The topic isn't evolution, it's Darwin. Darwin is
a myth. What you think you know about Darwin is a falsehood.
Who cares?
He was a methodical biologist
Have you even read "On the Origin of Species"?
As for Gregor Mendel,
Darwin never read the manuscript
On 8/17/25 4:25 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Have you even read "On the Origin of Species"?
Which version?
But, speaking of "Have you ever read," if you ever read what you're supposedly replying to, what specifically do you want to dispute,
and why?
As for Gregor Mendel, Darwin never read the manuscript
An except was published in a book which Darwin own and did read,
and left notes in the margins (though not on the except from
Mendel but it proves he read the book) and Mendel did send him
a copy which Darwin conveniently "Lost," along with letters from
Wallace that didn't make him look too good. All of this happened
BEFORE he came out with this arguably retarded "Pangenesis."
Yes Darwin was handed the answer FIRST, and then came up with
his pseudo scientific idiocy of pangenesis.
Later I can explain this all again, and you can fail to comprehend
a word of it, again.
On 8/17/25 3:55 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 16:55:04 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107qr78$1tvu3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/16/25 1:08 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again:a Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
....
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
You can always talk about evolution WITHOUT human names! Just focus on >>>> what he said rather than judging his personalities and characters.
Huh?!?
Did you not read what you're replying to?
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!
The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built
up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle"
gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to
their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these
larger muscles.
So my advice to you is to STOP believing everything you're told and
to START investigating things for yourself.
Pangenesis
THAT was Darwin's one and only "Theory," and he came out with it AFTER
Mendel had already come up with the right answer!
Evolution exists.
So does reading comprehension, even if not for you.
Topic isn't evolution, and it certainly never was for Darwin. The topic
is Darwin, who never believed in evolution.
On 8/17/25 4:07 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 10:21:16 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107sogt$2bbjn$4@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 9:55 AM, Attila wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 21:29:34 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107omu0$1etcv$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Oh, I know, you had a different thought driven into your skull
so you refuse to entertain any other idea.
You're such a *Good* dog... Pavlov's Dog...
The communist world under Stalin and later under Mao BANNED
evolution. Yes, you could go to prison for teaching evolution
of basing any science on it.
The Nazis had their "Master Race," very true, but long before
that all of the west had it's Eugenics! And, yes, the communist
world did see this as proof that "evolution" was a western
imperialist plot to enforce some social and economic hierarchy.
But, that hierarchy. Very bad.
But, here's the thing: The communist world would NOT have had
much is any problem with Darwin himself! Because, as I said,
just in case you weren't paying attention; Darwin did NOT
believe in evolution!
Darwin's one and only "Theory" -- if we can call it that, though
technically it was never a "Theory" -- wasn't evolution, it was
PANGENESIS!
Google it, assuming you have computer access...
Darwin, being a complete fraud, a flatulent racist & moron, didn't
entirely come up with this "Pangenesis" idea on his own. In fact,
he came up with NOTHING on his own. Like everything else, he had
plagiarized his pagenesis from "Lamarkism." And when Stalin banned
that oh so imperialistic "Evolution" thing in the communist world,
what he replaced it with was lysenkoism.
NOTE: Lysenkoism was a cheap copy of Lamarkism, just like Darwin's
Pangenesis. So that goddamn idiot Darwin didn't even believe in
evolution! No, he was in full agreement with the people who would
later BAN evolution...
It gets worse.
Darwin's topic wasn't even "Evolution" anyway. He was writing
about COMMON DESCENT. Now this COMMON DESCENT was a very old idea,
Darwin was introduced to it through his grandfather, who was a
notable proponent! But some sources will tell you that COMMON
DESCENT stretches back into ancient times. However far back you
want to put it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you can
place it back well before Darwin AND "Evolution" had always been
a part of it.
THINK: If a goat and a whale share a common ancestor, as COMMON
DESCENT insists, then obviously one or both had to have EVOLVED
a great deal since the time of that common ancestor.
It gets worse.
Google The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance. These would be named
for Gregor Mendel the man who effectively cracked the code of
inheritance. He contacted Darwin, this Mendel, AND Darwin was
exposed to Mendel's work in the literature of the day. And Darwin
was such a goddamn jackass that he dismissed Mendel, or just plain
ignored him AND AFTERWARDS came out with his pseudo scientific
"Pangenesis" crap!
Get it? Darwin was handed the answer, threw it away and came up
with idiocy instead....
It gets worse.
Darwin appears to have "Lost" the communication sent to him by
Mendel. And he seemed to have "Lost" letters sent to him from
Wallace, a man he appears to have stolen much from, including
"Natural Selection."
Yes, Darwin "Lost" the evidence against him...
IT TOOK 20 YEARS FOR THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD TO RECOVER
FROM DARWIN!
By becoming the name & face of naturalism, and throwing away
Mendel and his cracking the mystery of inheritance, science lost
20 years! It took that long for the English Speaking world to
discover the science lost to it by Darwin's idiocy...
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
READ YOUR DARWIN GOSPELS!
Wallace! Wallace would have still published!
And, again, without Darwin becoming the face of naturalism and
throwing aside Mendel, Mendel's work would likely gained
prominence in the English Speaking world....
There is literally nothing to gain by maintaining the myth of
Darwin. Stop settling. Stop accepting brain manure because some
self-appointed ruling class ordered you to.
Yet evolution is an integral part of a number of sciences.
Why the "Yet?" The topic isn't evolution, it's Darwin. Darwin is
a myth. What you think you know about Darwin is a falsehood.
Who cares?
You want to know who cares what the topic is? Well. Supposedly you
do. I do else I would never have brought it up.
He was a methodical biologist
Darwin? Wtf?!?!?
You're trolling. You can't possibly be *This* clueless! You're
trolling.
Yep, there were 5 editions of the Origin; everyone knows that.-a Read the 1st.
I am not sure what your point is about Mendel??
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:18:11 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107tde5$2im6m$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 3:55 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 16:55:04 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107qr78$1tvu3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/16/25 1:08 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again:-a Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
....
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
You can always talk about evolution WITHOUT human names! Just focus on >>>>> what he said rather than judging his personalities and characters.
Huh?!?
Did you not read what you're replying to?
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!
The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built
up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle"
gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to
their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these
larger muscles.
So my advice to you is to STOP believing everything you're told and
to START investigating things for yourself.
Pangenesis
THAT was Darwin's one and only "Theory," and he came out with it AFTER >>>> Mendel had already come up with the right answer!
Evolution exists.
So does reading comprehension, even if not for you.
Topic isn't evolution, and it certainly never was for Darwin. The topic
is Darwin, who never believed in evolution.
Who cares?
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:47:41 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107tf5d$2im6m$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 4:07 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 10:21:16 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107sogt$2bbjn$4@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 9:55 AM, Attila wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 21:29:34 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107omu0$1etcv$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
Oh, I know, you had a different thought driven into your skull
so you refuse to entertain any other idea.
You're such a *Good* dog... Pavlov's Dog...
The communist world under Stalin and later under Mao BANNED
evolution. Yes, you could go to prison for teaching evolution
of basing any science on it.
The Nazis had their "Master Race," very true, but long before
that all of the west had it's Eugenics! And, yes, the communist
world did see this as proof that "evolution" was a western
imperialist plot to enforce some social and economic hierarchy.
But, that hierarchy. Very bad.
But, here's the thing: The communist world would NOT have had
much is any problem with Darwin himself! Because, as I said,
just in case you weren't paying attention; Darwin did NOT
believe in evolution!
Darwin's one and only "Theory" -- if we can call it that, though
technically it was never a "Theory" -- wasn't evolution, it was
PANGENESIS!
Google it, assuming you have computer access...
Darwin, being a complete fraud, a flatulent racist & moron, didn't >>>>>> entirely come up with this "Pangenesis" idea on his own. In fact,
he came up with NOTHING on his own. Like everything else, he had
plagiarized his pagenesis from "Lamarkism." And when Stalin banned >>>>>> that oh so imperialistic "Evolution" thing in the communist world, >>>>>> what he replaced it with was lysenkoism.
NOTE: Lysenkoism was a cheap copy of Lamarkism, just like Darwin's >>>>>> Pangenesis. So that goddamn idiot Darwin didn't even believe in
evolution! No, he was in full agreement with the people who would
later BAN evolution...
It gets worse.
Darwin's topic wasn't even "Evolution" anyway. He was writing
about COMMON DESCENT. Now this COMMON DESCENT was a very old idea, >>>>>> Darwin was introduced to it through his grandfather, who was a
notable proponent! But some sources will tell you that COMMON
DESCENT stretches back into ancient times. However far back you
want to put it doesn't matter. What does matter is that you can
place it back well before Darwin AND "Evolution" had always been
a part of it.
THINK: If a goat and a whale share a common ancestor, as COMMON
DESCENT insists, then obviously one or both had to have EVOLVED
a great deal since the time of that common ancestor.
It gets worse.
Google The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance. These would be named
for Gregor Mendel the man who effectively cracked the code of
inheritance. He contacted Darwin, this Mendel, AND Darwin was
exposed to Mendel's work in the literature of the day. And Darwin
was such a goddamn jackass that he dismissed Mendel, or just plain >>>>>> ignored him AND AFTERWARDS came out with his pseudo scientific
"Pangenesis" crap!
Get it? Darwin was handed the answer, threw it away and came up
with idiocy instead....
It gets worse.
Darwin appears to have "Lost" the communication sent to him by
Mendel. And he seemed to have "Lost" letters sent to him from
Wallace, a man he appears to have stolen much from, including
"Natural Selection."
Yes, Darwin "Lost" the evidence against him...
IT TOOK 20 YEARS FOR THE ENGLISH SPEAKING WORLD TO RECOVER
FROM DARWIN!
By becoming the name & face of naturalism, and throwing away
Mendel and his cracking the mystery of inheritance, science lost
20 years! It took that long for the English Speaking world to
discover the science lost to it by Darwin's idiocy...
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
READ YOUR DARWIN GOSPELS!
Wallace! Wallace would have still published!
And, again, without Darwin becoming the face of naturalism and
throwing aside Mendel, Mendel's work would likely gained
prominence in the English Speaking world....
There is literally nothing to gain by maintaining the myth of
Darwin. Stop settling. Stop accepting brain manure because some
self-appointed ruling class ordered you to.
Yet evolution is an integral part of a number of sciences.
Why the "Yet?" The topic isn't evolution, it's Darwin. Darwin is
a myth. What you think you know about Darwin is a falsehood.
Who cares?
You want to know who cares what the topic is? Well. Supposedly you
do. I do else I would never have brought it up.
I suppose you think that somehow throwing rocks at Darwin
On 8/17/25 7:21 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Yep, there were 5 editions of the Origin; everyone knows that.-a Read
the 1st.
Why?-a Which fact, specifically, do you believe that could refute?
You're supposedly making an argument here <lol> so make it.
I am not sure what your point is about Mendel??
So you're not sure why I would bring up Mendel working out inheritance
and Darwin being exposed to this fact BEFORE he came out with his
pseudo scientific "Pangenesis?" It's because the order is very
important. FIRST Darwin was provided with the answer AND THEN he made
a goddamn fool of himself with his pangenesis idiocy INSTEAD of going
with the right answer.
How did you miss this?
What is it about reading comprehension that offends you so much and
why won't you try it?
Did they talk about his methods, like how he didn't test any of his
ideas? No, the man argued "Logic," or what seemed logical to him.
Did they talk about Darwin's real subject, which was common descent?
Darwin didn't come up with that either. No, he was defending his grandfather's work, a strong proponent of common descent.
....
Without Darwin, more deserving men like Wallace & Mendel would
have risen to prominence and science would have gained 20 years
over our present timeline.
On 8/17/25 7:20 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 17/8/2025 1:53 pm, JTEM wrote:
What I said was from the textbooks and notes I read.
So I pointed out the fact that you believe a myth, and you went back
and re-read that myth instead of looking into any of the points I made.
Well. I am not impressed. Sorry.
On 8/17/25 8:12 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:18:11 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107tde5$2im6m$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 3:55 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 16:55:04 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107qr78$1tvu3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/16/25 1:08 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again:a Darwin is a myth.
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
....
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was
the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species?
You can always talk about evolution WITHOUT human names! Just focus on >>>>>> what he said rather than judging his personalities and characters.
Huh?!?
Did you not read what you're replying to?
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!
The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built
up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle"
gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to
their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these >>>>> larger muscles.
So my advice to you is to STOP believing everything you're told and
to START investigating things for yourself.
Pangenesis
THAT was Darwin's one and only "Theory," and he came out with it AFTER >>>>> Mendel had already come up with the right answer!
Evolution exists.
So does reading comprehension, even if not for you.
Topic isn't evolution, and it certainly never was for Darwin. The topic
is Darwin, who never believed in evolution.
Who cares?
You do. Which is why you keep replying. If you didn't care you wouldn't
even take notice, much less involve yourself.
Effort follows interest.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 22:01:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107u1h5$2nv09$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 8:12 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:18:11 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107tde5$2im6m$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 3:55 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 16:55:04 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107qr78$1tvu3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/16/25 1:08 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:Huh?!?
You can always talk about evolution WITHOUT human names! Just focus on >>>>>>> what he said rather than judging his personalities and characters. >>>>>>
I've said it before and I'll say it again:-a Darwin is a myth. >>>>>>>>
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
....
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was >>>>>>>> the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species? >>>>>>
Did you not read what you're replying to?
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!
The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built >>>>>> up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle"
gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to >>>>>> their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these >>>>>> larger muscles.
So my advice to you is to STOP believing everything you're told and >>>>>> to START investigating things for yourself.
Pangenesis
THAT was Darwin's one and only "Theory," and he came out with it AFTER >>>>>> Mendel had already come up with the right answer!
Evolution exists.
So does reading comprehension, even if not for you.
Topic isn't evolution, and it certainly never was for Darwin. The topic >>>> is Darwin, who never believed in evolution.
Who cares?
You do. Which is why you keep replying. If you didn't care you wouldn't
even take notice, much less involve yourself.
Effort follows interest.
Or I was bored and dislike people like you who like word
games.
Darwin's claim to fame is the association of his name with
evolution, and evolution is by far the more important
factor. Unless you are a biologist or a biographer any
interest in Darwin is passing, minor, and relatively
unimportant. Yet you go to great lengths to separate the
two and insist on limiting the discussion to Darwin alone.
As I said, who cares? I don't and I am through with this
topic, such as it is.
Darwin did not understand Mendel's work
which was true of most
naturalists of Darwin's day.
Why is this hard to comprehend?!
On 17/8/2025 10:14 pm, JTEM wrote:
Did they talk about his methods, like how he didn't test any of his
ideas? No, the man argued "Logic," or what seemed logical to him.
Did they talk about Darwin's real subject, which was common descent?
Darwin didn't come up with that either. No, he was defending his
grandfather's work, a strong proponent of common descent.
....
Without Darwin, more deserving men like Wallace & Mendel would
have risen to prominence and science would have gained 20 years
over our present timeline.
Go find an university professor to aid your study about
On 17/8/2025 10:18 pm, JTEM wrote:
On 8/17/25 7:20 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 17/8/2025 1:53 pm, JTEM wrote:
What I said was from the textbooks and notes I read.
So I pointed out the fact that you believe a myth, and you went back
and re-read that myth instead of looking into any of the points I made.
Well. I am not impressed. Sorry.
I will stick with textbook answers
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 22:01:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107u1h5$2nv09$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 8:12 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:18:11 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107tde5$2im6m$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 3:55 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 16:55:04 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107qr78$1tvu3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/16/25 1:08 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:Huh?!?
You can always talk about evolution WITHOUT human names! Just focus on >>>>>>> what he said rather than judging his personalities and characters. >>>>>>
I've said it before and I'll say it again:-a Darwin is a myth. >>>>>>>>
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
....
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was >>>>>>>> the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science!
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin
nobody would have published any books on the origins of species? >>>>>>
Did you not read what you're replying to?
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!
The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built >>>>>> up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle"
gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to >>>>>> their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these >>>>>> larger muscles.
So my advice to you is to STOP believing everything you're told and >>>>>> to START investigating things for yourself.
Pangenesis
THAT was Darwin's one and only "Theory," and he came out with it AFTER >>>>>> Mendel had already come up with the right answer!
Evolution exists.
So does reading comprehension, even if not for you.
Topic isn't evolution, and it certainly never was for Darwin. The topic >>>> is Darwin, who never believed in evolution.
Who cares?
You do. Which is why you keep replying. If you didn't care you wouldn't
even take notice, much less involve yourself.
Effort follows interest.
Or I was bored and dislike people like you who like word
games.
Please note that JTEM has not (yet) replied to my post about the statistician and geneticist Ronald A. Fisher.
Prior to Darwin and his work, the prevailing view among scholars was
that species were immutable
having been each specially created by an
omnipotent God.
On 8/18/25 5:08 AM, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 22:01:09 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107u1h5$2nv09$2@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 8:12 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 16:18:11 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107tde5$2im6m$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/17/25 3:55 PM, Attila wrote:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 16:55:04 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
in alt.atheism with message-id
<107qr78$1tvu3$1@dont-email.me> wrote:
On 8/16/25 1:08 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:Huh?!?
You can always talk about evolution WITHOUT human names! Just focus on >>>>>>>> what he said rather than judging his personalities and characters. >>>>>>>
I've said it before and I'll say it again:a Darwin is a myth. >>>>>>>>>
The real Darwin didn't even "believe" in evolution!
....
So Darwin wasn't a great man of science. He wasn't. Darwin was >>>>>>>>> the enemy of science! Darwin did enormous DAMAGE to science! >>>>>>>>>
Seriously, you honestly believe that if it weren't for Darwin >>>>>>>>> nobody would have published any books on the origins of species? >>>>>>>
Did you not read what you're replying to?
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution!
The jackass believed that if an animal used it's legs a lot, built >>>>>>> up those muscles, then the body would produce "Large leg muscle" >>>>>>> gemmules that traveled to daddy's nut sack and were passed down to >>>>>>> their offspring. The result is that animals would be born with these >>>>>>> larger muscles.
So my advice to you is to STOP believing everything you're told and >>>>>>> to START investigating things for yourself.
Pangenesis
THAT was Darwin's one and only "Theory," and he came out with it AFTER >>>>>>> Mendel had already come up with the right answer!
Evolution exists.
So does reading comprehension, even if not for you.
Topic isn't evolution, and it certainly never was for Darwin. The topic >>>>> is Darwin, who never believed in evolution.
Who cares?
You do. Which is why you keep replying. If you didn't care you wouldn't
even take notice, much less involve yourself.
Effort follows interest.
Or I was bored and dislike people like you who like word
games.
It's not a word game. In fact, I attack YOU and your fundamentalist
religious adherence to the written word. Instead, I focus on the
application of ideas.
Darwin's one theory was called pangenesis, and it was in agreement with,
not opposed to, those who REJECTED and even OUTLAWED evolution.
Darwin was such a fucking idiot that he produced this pangenesis AFTER
Mendel had figured out inheritance and even contacted Darwin! Darwin
was such a fraud that he ignored Mendel and came out with pseudo
scientific pangenesis IN COMPETITION WITH Mendel's work.
On 8/18/25 11:05 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Please note that JTEM has not (yet) replied to my post about the
statistician and geneticist Ronald A. Fisher.
Well my point is about Darwin and how, specifically, everything
people BELIEVE about him is a myth.
If you need to invoke a later name in an attempt to reform
Darwin, what you're really doing is furthering my point.
You're agreeing with me.
Darwin was an idiot.
And even your invoking of a third name is disinformation as it
suggests that Darwin got "Evolution" right.
He didn't.
Darwin wasn't writing about evolution, he was writing about
common descent, and he got it wrong. He didn't believe in
evolution at all. He believed the same kind of pseudo
scientific idiocy that the people who OUTLAWED evolution
believed!
Prior to Darwin and his work, the prevailing view among scholars was
that species were immutable
Ironically, it was only the people who just accepted what they were
told, as you are doing, that got it wrong. Common Descent was very
old by the time Darwin first started to misunderstand it, and
evolution has ALWAYS been a part of it.
having been each specially created by an omnipotent God.
There was a time when the prevailing view was the mice and roaches
and other pests just spontaneously formed. Leave a pile of rags in
the corner, was the example, and mice would pop into existence, living
there.
I know this. And Darwin AND YOU group with these people, believing
what you always heard and never challenging or testing.
On 8/17/25 11:42 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Darwin did not understand Mendel's work
Darwin would be confused by a Pez dispenser. The man was an idiot.
which was true of most naturalists of Darwin's day.
Not faulting him for that. Except maybe it means he wasn't just intellectually challenged but a narcissist, believing that if
he couldn't do it no one could.
HINT:-a He could have just ASKED someone!-a The man was literally
the name & face of naturalism at the time. He was "Biology
Central" for years! Which is why Mendel reached out to him in
the first place. So Darwin had contacts, and if there was
anything he couldn't grasp -- and there wasn't much he could
grasp -- he could have asked someone.
Why is this hard to comprehend?!
"It's not his fault that he was a moron who didn't believe
in evolution. Why is this hard to comprehend?!"
It was his fault. He did damage science, not advance it. If his
mother had the good sense to drown him in the tub as a infant
Wallace would have still accomplished his work, Mendel still
would have investigated inheritance and "Evolution" would have
still entered public knowledge.
Darwin set back science 20 years!
So even if it would have taken another five or 10 years without
the low life from an aristocratic family, our timeline STILL would
have advanced anywhere from 10 to 15 years AHEAD of where we
presently are!
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 12:58:33 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
It's not a word game. In fact, I attack YOU and your fundamentalist
religious adherence to the written word. Instead, I focus on the
application of ideas.
That is amusing considering I have been an atheist all my
live. My position on religion
Darwin was such a fucking idiot that he produced this pangenesis AFTER
Mendel had figured out inheritance and even contacted Darwin! Darwin
was such a fraud that he ignored Mendel and came out with pseudo
scientific pangenesis IN COMPETITION WITH Mendel's work.
Again, it doesn't matter.
On 8/18/2025 12:37 PM, JTEM wrote:
I know this. And Darwin AND YOU group with these people, believing
what you always heard and never challenging or testing.
No way!-a Here was the prevailing view prior to Darwin:
On 8/18/2025 11:47 AM, JTEM wrote:
It was his fault. He did damage science, not advance it. If his
mother had the good sense to drown him in the tub as a infant
Wallace would have still accomplished his work, Mendel still
would have investigated inheritance and "Evolution" would have
still entered public knowledge.
Darwin set back science 20 years!
So even if it would have taken another five or 10 years without
the low life from an aristocratic family, our timeline STILL would
have advanced anywhere from 10 to 15 years AHEAD of where we
presently are!
Absolute and utter nonsense.
Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' is > "considered to be thefoundation of evolutionary biology."
On 8/18/25 8:50 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/18/2025 11:47 AM, JTEM wrote:
It was his fault. He did damage science, not advance it. If his
mother had the good sense to drown him in the tub as a infant
Wallace would have still accomplished his work, Mendel still
would have investigated inheritance and "Evolution" would have
still entered public knowledge.
Darwin set back science 20 years!
So even if it would have taken another five or 10 years without
the low life from an aristocratic family, our timeline STILL would
have advanced anywhere from 10 to 15 years AHEAD of where we
presently are!
Absolute and utter nonsense.
No, you're just an idiot that can't think and must regurgitate what
has been spoon fed to it over the years... exactly like Darwin...
exactly like the people who believed in spontaneously formed mice...
Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' is > "considered to be thefoundation of evolutionary biology."
It was about common descent. THAT was his subject! NOT evolution but
common descent.
P.S.-a You misspelled the "Transmutation of species."
Darwin believed that if an animal used it's leg muscles a lot, built
them us, it's body produced "Built up leg muscle gemmules." These
traveled to the gonads and were passed on to their offspring which
would be born with built-up leg muscles.
On 8/18/2025 10:47 PM, JTEM wrote:
P.S.-a You misspelled the "Transmutation of species."
Darwin believed that if an animal used it's leg muscles a lot, built
them us, it's body produced "Built up leg muscle gemmules." These
traveled to the gonads and were passed on to their offspring which
would be born with built-up leg muscles.
I never used the word "transmutation"
, but, what's your point??-a (That
Darwin titled his book incorrectly??)
Why? What specifically do you want to pretend is wrong here?
Do you just FEEL you way through life, reacting emotionally, or
do you ever identify specific points of contention, and identify
reasons for your "Disagreeing" with them?
Darwin didn't believe in evolution. I could dine at the Harvard
Faculty Club for the next month and nothing is going to change
this fact. They'd have to play some childish definitions game in
order to shoehorn a scientific Darwin into view....
"If we define up as down everything is upside down!"
I will stick with textbook answers
That's called "Religious Fundamentalism" -- adherence to, blind faith
in the written world.
What I challenged you to do was to identify what specifically you want
to disagree with, and why. Following that, pretending you are capable
of moving THAT far, we could then proceed to a discussion on how you
are misreading your imaginary textbook -- which, let's face it, we both
know you don't own much less read -- into refuting a point I raised.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution. There is no way this fact can be escaped. Stalin and then Mao OUTLAWED evolution but they would not have
fault much if any fault in Darwin's one "Theory" -- pangenesis
On 8/18/25 2:42 PM, Attila wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 12:58:33 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
It's not a word game. In fact, I attack YOU and your fundamentalist
religious adherence to the written word. Instead, I focus on the
application of ideas.
That is amusing considering I have been an atheist all my
live. My position on religion
You're an idiot but I'll explain... though it's impossible that
you might get it.
Your feeble brain works EXACTLY the same way as any Christian
fundamentalist. There's is ZERO distinction. They use it on
the bible, you use it on whatever you mistaken for "Science" or
whatever it is you pretend to be protecting.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution. Everything you think you
know about Darwin is a myth. You religiously and quite devoutly
believe in a fictional character.
Darwin was such a fucking idiot that he produced this pangenesis AFTER
Mendel had figured out inheritance and even contacted Darwin! Darwin
was such a fraud that he ignored Mendel and came out with pseudo
scientific pangenesis IN COMPETITION WITH Mendel's work.
Again, it doesn't matter.
Of course it matters. It matters a lot. Darwin is a cancer on science.
In a field where accuracy is all important, Darwin in a study in lies.
He's a myth. The man as he is passed down to us is entirely fictional.
Yes it matters if your poster child for evolutionary biology is a
bogus lie.
It really does matter if men who want to be taken seriously dogmatically >advance myths. It matters if men who want to speak with the authority
of empirical reality promote a fairy tale.
On 19/8/2025 12:50 am, JTEM wrote:
Why?-a What specifically do you want to pretend is wrong here?
Do you just FEEL you way through life, reacting emotionally, or
do you ever identify specific points of contention, and identify
reasons for your "Disagreeing" with them?
Darwin didn't believe in evolution. I could dine at the Harvard
Faculty Club for the next month and nothing is going to change
this fact. They'd have to play some childish definitions game in
order to shoehorn a scientific Darwin into view....
"If we define up as down everything is upside down!"
Biology is NOT just about Darwin!
On 19/8/2025 12:54 am, JTEM wrote:
I will stick with textbook answers
That's called "Religious Fundamentalism" -- adherence to, blind faith
in the written world.
What I challenged you to do was to identify what specifically you want
to disagree with, and why. Following that, pretending you are capable
of moving THAT far, we could then proceed to a discussion on how you
are misreading your imaginary textbook -- which, let's face it, we both
know you don't own much less read -- into refuting a point I raised.
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution. There is no way this fact can be
escaped. Stalin and then Mao OUTLAWED evolution but they would not have
fault much if any fault in Darwin's one "Theory" -- pangenesis
Biology is NOT just about Darwin.
On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 23:37:39 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com>
Darwin did NOT believe in evolution. Everything you think you
know about Darwin is a myth. You religiously and quite devoutly
believe in a fictional character.
What part of "It doesn't matter to me" do you fail to
understand?
Of course it matters. It matters a lot. Darwin is a cancer on science.
In a field where accuracy is all important, Darwin in a study in lies.
He's a myth. The man as he is passed down to us is entirely fictional.
So what?
History is full of heroes with dirty feet.
Yes it matters if your poster child for evolutionary biology is a
bogus lie.
To you perhaps but to few others.
On 8/19/25 12:34 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/18/2025 10:47 PM, JTEM wrote:
P.S.-a You misspelled the "Transmutation of species."
Darwin believed that if an animal used it's leg muscles a lot, built
them us, it's body produced "Built up leg muscle gemmules." These
traveled to the gonads and were passed on to their offspring which
would be born with built-up leg muscles.
I never used the word "transmutation"
Exactly. But it was what Darwin used. So
, but, what's your point??-a (That Darwin titled his book incorrectly??)
You're a fucking psycho. His book wasn't called "Evolution."
It wasn't about evolution.
And he clearly had zero understanding of "Natural Selection," which
his one and only theory -- pangenesis -- had ZERO room for.
But you're this dogmatic fool who was ordered to believe some shit
so you can't break from it.
On 8/19/25 4:43 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 19/8/2025 12:50 am, JTEM wrote:
Biology is NOT just about Darwin!
THIS THREAD IS!
The subject is Darwin and, specifically, how everything you think
youo know is a lie. You are a devout follower of a myth, a
fictional character.
Your belief in Darwin is a religion, one based on faith and despite all
fact.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
You're a fucking psycho. His book wasn't called "Evolution."
It wasn't about evolution.
And he clearly had zero understanding of "Natural Selection," which
his one and only theory -- pangenesis -- had ZERO room for.
Charles Darwin was the principle originator "of the theory of evolution
by natural selection";
Okay... I have never talked about biology
On 19/8/2025 10:58 pm, JTEM wrote:
n.
Your belief in Darwin is a religion, one based on faith and despite all
fact.
Wrong. I am not talking about religions.
On 16/8/2025 9:29 am, JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again:-a Darwin is a myth.
Who else in the field of classical science are in the list of your "inquisition"? :)
On 19/8/2025 2:38 pm, JTEM wrote:
You're a fucking psycho. His book wasn't called "Evolution."
It wasn't about evolution.
And he clearly had zero understanding of "Natural Selection," which
his one and only theory -- pangenesis -- had ZERO room for.
I failed to find what you said:
Why? What answer can change the fact that Darwin wasn't writing
about evolution, he didn't believe in evolution and science in
the English speaking world SUFFERED because of Darwin?
On 8/19/25 2:17 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
Wrong. I am not talking about religions.
That's why you're so funny! You maintain that you are NOT religious
even though you clearly are faith based!
Now what SPECIFICALLY do you want to dispute, and why?
You're being modest. There's *Lots* of things you failed at!
Seriously, you're claiming that you Googled Darwin pangenesis and
found nothing?
Lol!
There are people with down syndrome pointing & laughing at you!
...and calling you a retard, most likely.
-aDawn Flood wrote:
Charles Darwin was the principle originator "of the theory of
evolution by natural selection";
No, Wallace came up with the "Natural Selection" and Darwin never even believed in evolution. As I pointed out, his one theory was pangenesis
and it worked nicely with those who banned evolution, outlawed it.
Darwin's word wasn't evolution, it was transmutation. You did previously pretend to know this.
On 20/8/2025 10:38 am, JTEM wrote:
Why? What answer can change the fact that Darwin wasn't writing
about evolution, he didn't believe in evolution and science in
the English speaking world SUFFERED because of Darwin?
Without actually reading Darwin's original
No, I am not faith.
On 20/8/2025 10:41 am, JTEM wrote:
You're being modest. There's *Lots* of things you failed at!
Seriously, you're claiming that you Googled Darwin pangenesis and
found nothing?
Lol!
There are people with down syndrome pointing & laughing at you!
-a-a-a-a-a-a ...and calling you a retard, most likely.
challenge against darwin - Google Search
I have read the Origin.
The phrase that Darwin used for "evolution" was
"descent with modification".
On 8/20/25 8:34 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I have read the Origin.
No you don't. Remember:-a You're pretending to NOT be a religious fundamentalist. Instead of INTERPRETING the words of Darwin,
just look at what he did!
Look at how he-a /Applied/-a his beliefs.
AFTER Origins was published he gained prominence, he was contact
by Mendel with his findings, Darwin was exposed to Mendel's work
in literature that he owned AND THEN he produced the pseudo
scientific idiocy that is pangenesis.
Pangenesis, as I already pointed out, was nothing more than a
variation on lamarckism and totally in line with the lysenkoism
that the communist world produced as a replacement for the
OUTLAWED "Theory of Evolution."
So, don't read Origins, go read about Lamarckism, pangenesis
and lysenkoism. Google Stalin and his ban on evolution.
Done.
WHAT DID DARWIN ACTUALLY BELIEVE AND PUT INTO WORDS __AFTER__
ORIGINS?
Pangenesis.
Is pangenesis "Evolution?"
No.
The phrase that Darwin used for "evolution" was "descent with
modification".
"Transmutation."
On 8/20/2025 11:10 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/20/25 8:34 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I have read the Origin.
No you don't. Remember:-a You're pretending to NOT be a religious
fundamentalist. Instead of INTERPRETING the words of Darwin,
just look at what he did!
Look at how he-a /Applied/-a his beliefs.
AFTER Origins was published he gained prominence, he was contact
by Mendel with his findings, Darwin was exposed to Mendel's work
in literature that he owned AND THEN he produced the pseudo
scientific idiocy that is pangenesis.
Pangenesis, as I already pointed out, was nothing more than a
variation on lamarckism and totally in line with the lysenkoism
that the communist world produced as a replacement for the
OUTLAWED "Theory of Evolution."
So, don't read Origins, go read about Lamarckism, pangenesis
and lysenkoism. Google Stalin and his ban on evolution.
Done.
WHAT DID DARWIN ACTUALLY BELIEVE AND PUT INTO WORDS __AFTER__
ORIGINS?
Pangenesis.
Is pangenesis "Evolution?"
No.
The phrase that Darwin used for "evolution" was "descent with
modification".
"Transmutation."
Just out of pure curiosity
can you name a single scholar who agrees
with you??
Just out of pure curiosity, can you name a single scholar who agrees
with you??
-aDawn Flood wrote:
Just out of pure curiosity, can you name a single scholar who agrees
with you??
Back in... 2007, was it? Back then, I got into an "Argument"
with talk.origins.
No, not an argument *In* talk.origins, I got into an
"Argument" WITH talk.origins.
See, I was arguing that Neanderthals and so called "Moderns"
interbred, and everyone else against the notion.
I can't honestly state that anyone "Argued" with me, though
I did try.
The biggest claim they had was the varies media pieces and/or
"Studies" on Neanderthal mtDNA. I pointed out why those
studies were irrelevant, how other accepted science -- accepted
by every last member of that group -- were based on the
OPPOSITE assumptions that the Neanderthal studies were based on...
Exactly like you right now, nobody was capable of acknowledging
what I was saying, much less address a word of it.
This is how I know you're either a troll or painfully stupid.
Either way, you are beyond pathetic. Which explains the sock
puppets.
P.S.-a Not too many years later the Neanderthal genome was
mapped and interbreeding was confirmed.
P.P.S.-a Before the sequencing of their genome, a man named
Erik Trunkaus had already proved interbreeding using
anatomy...
On 8/20/25 7:56 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/20/2025 11:10 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/20/25 8:34 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I have read the Origin.
No you don't. Remember:-a You're pretending to NOT be a religious
fundamentalist. Instead of INTERPRETING the words of Darwin,
just look at what he did!
Look at how he-a /Applied/-a his beliefs.
AFTER Origins was published he gained prominence, he was contact
by Mendel with his findings, Darwin was exposed to Mendel's work
in literature that he owned AND THEN he produced the pseudo
scientific idiocy that is pangenesis.
Pangenesis, as I already pointed out, was nothing more than a
variation on lamarckism and totally in line with the lysenkoism
that the communist world produced as a replacement for the
OUTLAWED "Theory of Evolution."
So, don't read Origins, go read about Lamarckism, pangenesis
and lysenkoism. Google Stalin and his ban on evolution.
Done.
WHAT DID DARWIN ACTUALLY BELIEVE AND PUT INTO WORDS __AFTER__
ORIGINS?
Pangenesis.
Is pangenesis "Evolution?"
No.
The phrase that Darwin used for "evolution" was "descent with
modification".
"Transmutation."
Just out of pure curiosity
Are you actually pretending to NOT be a religious fundamentalist?!?!?
You need someone to tell you what to think?!?!?
can you name a single scholar who agrees with you??
Can you name a single scholar who DISAGREES with the fact that
Darwin's "Theory" was pangenesis, that's Stalin & Mao OUTLAWED
evolution and adopted lysenkoism, which was nothing more than
a flavor of the same lamarckism that Darwin plagiarized?
One scholar? Even one?
You DID Google it, right?
You wanted to contest what I said so you of course Googled
it and you found...
what?
Darwin wasn't writing about evolution. He did later adopt the
term, when others fed it to him, but he never grasped it and
clearly never believed in it.
Darwin did NOT advance science he damaged it, held it back
20 years, just by becoming the name & face of naturalism and
marginalizing Mendel...
If you didn't publish such in a peer-reviewed
Honey,
You have a fatal flaw in your argument, and here it is:
EVERYONE MARGINALIZED MENDEL, INCLUDING, MENDEL HIMSELF.
On 8/18/25 8:44 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/18/2025 12:37 PM, JTEM wrote:
I know this. And Darwin AND YOU group with these people, believing
what you always heard and never challenging or testing.
No way!-a Here was the prevailing view prior to Darwin:
Darwin's grandfather was probably the biggest proponent of
common descent in his day. Darwin was simply regurgitating
what he was raised with.
Darwin never looked forward, as an idiot who simply accepted
what was told, he always looked backwards. This is how he
could believe in such idiocy as his pangenesis. He plagiarized
lamarck! That's all. And even Lamarck was hardly a trail
blazer himself! It was all well tred ground...
This is exactly like you:-a Not educated but trained like one
of Pavlov's Dogs!-a The absolute easiest thing in the world
would be to look at a myth such as Darwin and saying, "Yeah.
What we are taught about Darwin is a myth. The jackass didn't
even believe in evolution!"
Well it would be easy if you didn't merely accept what was
handed to you....
On 8/21/25 12:31 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Honey,
You have a fatal flaw in your argument, and here it is:
EVERYONE MARGINALIZED MENDEL, INCLUDING, MENDEL HIMSELF.
When you were a young child twat -- a Twatling -- did you
care giver ever say to you something like; "If everybody
else jumped off a bridge would you?"
Relax. It was a rhetorical question... (look it up)
"Everyone believed in pseudo scientific bullshit" PROVES, does
not refute, the fact that Darwin believed in and advanced
pseudo scientific bullshit over scientific findings. Why?
Because our flatulent, plagiarizing, racist idiot named Darwin
would be included within the set [Everyone].
But you're agreeing with me:
Darwin REJECTED the correct answer in favor of pseudo scientific
bullshit, and even 20 years later he had never reversed his
idiotic mistake. Someone else did. Someone else rediscovered
Mendel... and took credit for Mendel's work.
So Darwin's pangenesis was NOT evolution, is was totally in
line with the communist world that BANNED evolution, and
you have believed a fairy tale your whole life where Darwin
was the inventor or discoverer of "Evolution."
On 8/21/25 12:19 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
If you didn't publish such in a peer-reviewed
Stop trolling, you mentally unhinged twat.
There is no such thing as a "Peer-reviewed" journal that is
capable of transforming space and time. Every fact I
introduced is still a fact, regardless of how you are
misinterpreting some "Study."
You're not supposed to need a high priest to reveal to
you some "Truth."
And in a day & age when somebody's A.I. script is the
"Peer" reviewer, you're doubly retarded...
Did you or did you not Google for Darwin and Pangenesis?
Did you find Darwin's pangenesis?
On 8/18/2025 10:42 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/18/25 8:44 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/18/2025 12:37 PM, JTEM wrote:
I know this. And Darwin AND YOU group with these people,
believing
what you always heard and never challenging or testing.
No way!-a Here was the prevailing view prior to Darwin:
Darwin's grandfather was probably the biggest proponent of
common descent in his day. Darwin was simply regurgitating
what he was raised with.
Darwin never looked forward, as an idiot who simply accepted
what was told, he always looked backwards. This is how he
could believe in such idiocy as his pangenesis. He plagiarized
lamarck! That's all. And even Lamarck was hardly a trail
blazer himself! It was all well tred ground...
This is exactly like you:-a Not educated but trained like one
of Pavlov's Dogs!-a The absolute easiest thing in the world
would be to look at a myth such as Darwin and saying, "Yeah.
What we are taught about Darwin is a myth. The jackass didn't
even believe in evolution!"
Well it would be easy if you didn't merely accept what was
handed to you....
Darwin's original idea was evolution by natural selection, an
idea that he developed over the course of a few decades.-a Alfred
Russel Wallace discovered the similar idea over the course of a
few hours, wrote it up and sent his manuscript across the World
(Wallace was in southeast Asia at the time) to Darwin!-a It was
Darwin's friends, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, who arranged
for both Darwin and Wallace's papers to be published
simultaneously with a reading at the Linnean Society.
did wallace do any field work?
Darwin's original idea
was evolution by natural selection
an idea that
he developed over the course of a few decades.
No, as I just posted here a moment ago, Darwin's original idea was
evolution by natural selection.
On 8/22/25 12:21 PM, jojo wrote:
did wallace do any field work?
If only there was some means to "Research" these things from your
desktop or phone... SAY! We could do something, connect computers,
make a "Network" of computers... call it the internetwork of
something! "The World Wide Internetwork." Enact some protocols,
"WWI."
What do you think?
On 8/22/25 7:04 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
No, as I just posted here a moment ago, Darwin's original idea was
evolution by natural selection.
You're embarrassingly wrong, of course.
Darwin never once suffered an original idea in his life. His original
TOPIC was common descent. He was defending his grandfather's legacy
against upstarts like Wallace. IT WAS WALLACE who came up with the
concept of natural selection.
Ironically, evolution had always been a part of common descent, even
in ancient times, and Darwin was such a fraud that he never even
noticed, much less understood the concept...
Darwin didn't believe in evolution. He was in full agreement with
those who would later BAN and even OUTLAW evolution in the communist
world. This wasn't a brain fart. No, even 20 years later Darwin had
not recognized and corrected his idiocy.
Darwin is a myth.
You are faith based, dogmatically clinging to your holy gospels of
Darwin.
On 8/22/2025 12:42 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/22/25 7:04 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
No, as I just posted here a moment ago, Darwin's original idea was
evolution by natural selection.
You're embarrassingly wrong, of course.
Darwin never once suffered an original idea in his life. His original
TOPIC was common descent. He was defending his grandfather's legacy
against upstarts like Wallace. IT WAS WALLACE who came up with the
concept of natural selection.
Ironically, evolution had always been a part of common descent, even
in ancient times, and Darwin was such a fraud that he never even
noticed, much less understood the concept...
Darwin didn't believe in evolution. He was in full agreement with
those who would later BAN and even OUTLAW evolution in the communist
world. This wasn't a brain fart. No, even 20 years later Darwin had
not recognized and corrected his idiocy.
Darwin is a myth.
You are faith based, dogmatically clinging to your holy gospels of
Darwin.
Where and when did the phrase "natural selection" first appear?!-a This
is NOT a question of science but of etymology.
On 8/22/25 7:01 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Darwin's original idea
Darwin never suffered an original thought in his entire life.
YOu think he chose the Beagle? That those islands were his idea?
Or that he came up with his topic, COMMON DESCENT, not natural
selection or evolution? He didn't even believe in evolution!
was evolution by natural selection
Wallace came up with natural selection, nothing Darwin ever
wrote so much as hinted at the idea that he might've grasped
it at all. Like I said, he didn't believe in evolution. And
he was handed the answer on inheritance and buried it, and
never in 20 years did he correct his stupid mistake...
an idea that he developed over the course of a few decades.
That's a myth. You believe in Darwin the sky pixie. You think
a fictional character is real.
You're faith based.
Nothing in Darwin's writing AND ESPECIALLY HIS APPLICATION
OF HIS BELIEFS suggests that the man understood what he was
talking about.
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/18/2025 10:42 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/18/25 8:44 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/18/2025 12:37 PM, JTEM wrote:
I know this. And Darwin AND YOU group with these people, believing
what you always heard and never challenging or testing.
No way!-a Here was the prevailing view prior to Darwin:
Darwin's grandfather was probably the biggest proponent of
common descent in his day. Darwin was simply regurgitating
what he was raised with.
Darwin never looked forward, as an idiot who simply accepted
what was told, he always looked backwards. This is how he
could believe in such idiocy as his pangenesis. He plagiarized
lamarck! That's all. And even Lamarck was hardly a trail
blazer himself! It was all well tred ground...
This is exactly like you:-a Not educated but trained like one
of Pavlov's Dogs!-a The absolute easiest thing in the world
would be to look at a myth such as Darwin and saying, "Yeah.
What we are taught about Darwin is a myth. The jackass didn't
even believe in evolution!"
Well it would be easy if you didn't merely accept what was
handed to you....
Darwin's original idea was evolution by natural selection, an idea
that he developed over the course of a few decades.-a Alfred Russel
Wallace discovered the similar idea over the course of a few hours,
wrote it up and sent his manuscript across the World (Wallace was in
southeast Asia at the time) to Darwin!-a It was Darwin's friends,
Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, who arranged for both Darwin and
Wallace's papers to be published simultaneously with a reading at the
Linnean Society.
did wallace do any field work? if not, no credits for him.
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/22/2025 12:42 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/22/25 7:04 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
No, as I just posted here a moment ago, Darwin's original
idea was evolution by natural selection.
You're embarrassingly wrong, of course.
Darwin never once suffered an original idea in his life. His
original
TOPIC was common descent. He was defending his grandfather's
legacy
against upstarts like Wallace. IT WAS WALLACE who came up with
the
concept of natural selection.
Ironically, evolution had always been a part of common
descent, even
in ancient times, and Darwin was such a fraud that he never even
noticed, much less understood the concept...
Darwin didn't believe in evolution. He was in full agreement with
those who would later BAN and even OUTLAW evolution in the
communist
world. This wasn't a brain fart. No, even 20 years later
Darwin had
not recognized and corrected his idiocy.
Darwin is a myth.
You are faith based, dogmatically clinging to your holy
gospels of
Darwin.
Where and when did the phrase "natural selection" first
appear?!-a This is NOT a question of science but of etymology.
you're having a ocd episode
I am so very sorry that your "contributions" to
On 21/8/2025 12:03 am, JTEM wrote:
Did you or did you not Google for Darwin and Pangenesis?
Did you find Darwin's pangenesis?
Textbook answers: no! I rather remember textbook answers.
you dont understand, i treat posting here the same as talking to someone face to face.
Where and when did the
Like everyone of his day, Darwin started off as a creationist
On 8/22/25 10:18 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 21/8/2025 12:03 am, JTEM wrote:
Did you or did you not Google for Darwin and Pangenesis?
Did you find Darwin's pangenesis?
Textbook answers: no! I rather remember textbook answers.
So you "Proved" that the myth you believe in is right by
returning to your myth... pretending you ever read such
a textbook.
I wish I could have the religious faith
On 8/23/25 7:29 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
You're a really poor historian:
So you refuse to read Darwin, his pangenesis. You refuse to "Research" lysenkoism or how Stalin & Mao banned evolution. But you will read
people who aren't Darwin and then pretend you know what Darwin
believed...
Are you genuinely retarded or just trolling?
On 8/23/25 7:23 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Do this exercise for me, will you?-a Here's the definition of the word
"evolution" from Merriam-Webster:
Lysenkoism.
Did you Google it? Did you figure out WHERE it came from, and WHY?
Did you?
In which case you "Discovered" exactly what I had already told you:
The communist world banned, OUTLAWED evolution and in it's place
they put Lysenkoism.
The lysenkoism of Stalin & Mao was just a flavor of Darwin's
pangenesis, with them both being copied from lamarckism.
So, Darwin's beliefs matched those who REJECTED and even OUTLAWED
evolution, and you confirmed all this when you Googled it!
Right?
Or are you some dumb twat that can't manage a simple Google search
and instead must grope for some authority figure -- a high priest --
to reveal to you God's truths?
You're not THAT, right?
So you Googled it and you know that everything you just posted is
bullshit.
On 8/22/2025 8:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/22/25 3:10 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Where and when did the
What search terms did you punch into Google, the ones
that failed you so?
Asking for a friend.
No, not really. Asking to highlight the fact that you
have the means to educate yourself, and it is the
refusal to do so that leads so many to believe in myths.
I am not an expert in anything, but I have no reason to doubt those who
are:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20selection
Please note the "first known use".-a (It was after Erasmus Darwin had died.)
Dawn
On 8/23/2025 10:05 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/23/25 7:23 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Do this exercise for me, will you?-a Here's the definition of the word
"evolution" from Merriam-Webster:
Lysenkoism.
Did you Google it? Did you figure out WHERE it came from, and WHY?
Did you?
In which case you "Discovered" exactly what I had already told you:
The communist world banned, OUTLAWED evolution and in it's place
they put Lysenkoism.
The lysenkoism of Stalin & Mao was just a flavor of Darwin's
pangenesis, with them both being copied from lamarckism.
So, Darwin's beliefs matched those who REJECTED and even OUTLAWED
evolution, and you confirmed all this when you Googled it!
Right?
Or are you some dumb twat that can't manage a simple Google search
and instead must grope for some authority figure -- a high priest --
to reveal to you God's truths?
You're not THAT, right?
So you Googled it and you know that everything you just posted is
bullshit.
Who cares what the "communist world" thought (or, thinks?!)
So you need to pretend this is about me? Is that it?
Darwin was a fraud. He was exposed to Mendel's work, he was
handed the right answer, and he rejected it in favor of
pseudo scientific idiocy.
Darwin didn't believe in evolution. He never understood it
though so maybe if he had an I.Q. stretching up to the
mid range he may have believed it. But, alas, the man was
a raging jackass so no luck there...
Pangenesis
Lamarckism
lysenkoism
All you need is reading comprehension and a rudimentary
ability to deconstruct a problem & propose a test.
On 8/23/25 9:00 PM, Kenito Benito wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 12:00:40 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/19/25 11:04 PM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
No, I am not faith.
Of course you are. You're simply not self aware...
[Snip of you PROVING your religious devotion to what you claim Darwin >>believed.]
I wish I could hold as much faith in something, ANYTHING, as you
do with your dogmatic beliefs about Darwin. I really do.
You do. You're blind to the obvious even as you see the invisible
with absolute clarity: Pure faith!
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:25:23 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/20/25 7:56 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/20/2025 11:10 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/20/25 8:34 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I have read the Origin.
No you don't. Remember:a You're pretending to NOT be a religious
fundamentalist. Instead of INTERPRETING the words of Darwin,
just look at what he did!
Look at how hea /Applied/a his beliefs.
AFTER Origins was published he gained prominence, he was contact
by Mendel with his findings, Darwin was exposed to Mendel's work
in literature that he owned AND THEN he produced the pseudo
scientific idiocy that is pangenesis.
Pangenesis, as I already pointed out, was nothing more than a
variation on lamarckism and totally in line with the lysenkoism
that the communist world produced as a replacement for the
OUTLAWED "Theory of Evolution."
So, don't read Origins, go read about Lamarckism, pangenesis
and lysenkoism. Google Stalin and his ban on evolution.
Done.
WHAT DID DARWIN ACTUALLY BELIEVE AND PUT INTO WORDS __AFTER__
ORIGINS?
Pangenesis.
Is pangenesis "Evolution?"
No.
The phrase that Darwin used for "evolution" was "descent with
modification".
"Transmutation."
Just out of pure curiosity
Are you actually pretending to NOT be a religious fundamentalist?!?!?
You need someone to tell you what to think?!?!?
can you name a single scholar who agrees
with you??
Can you name a single scholar who DISAGREES with the fact that
Darwin's "Theory" was pangenesis, that's Stalin & Mao OUTLAWED
evolution and adopted lysenkoism, which was nothing more than
a flavor of the same lamarckism that Darwin plagiarized?
I wish I could have the religious faith about anything that you
PROVE you have regarding your belief regarding Darwin. Your faith is
so strong, you MUST remove parts of comments that are in opposition to
it.
You will, of course, run away from the truth, or attempt to
divert from it. You don't really have a choice.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 14:43:31 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/25 12:31 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Honey,
You have a fatal flaw in your argument, and here it is:
EVERYONE MARGINALIZED MENDEL, INCLUDING, MENDEL HIMSELF.
When you were a young child twat -- a Twatling -- did you
care giver ever say to you something like; "If everybody
else jumped off a bridge would you?"
Your misogynic anger serves to PROVE Dawn rattled your cage.
This, in turn, PROVES you lost.
Whine and cry about this truth as much as you need. I will merely
laugh at your further proving you lost. Again.
Or is that still?
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 16:21:58 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/18/2025 10:42 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/18/25 8:44 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/18/2025 12:37 PM, JTEM wrote:
I know this. And Darwin AND YOU group with these people,
believing
what you always heard and never challenging or testing.
No way!-a Here was the prevailing view prior to Darwin:
Darwin's grandfather was probably the biggest proponent of
common descent in his day. Darwin was simply regurgitating
what he was raised with.
Darwin never looked forward, as an idiot who simply accepted
what was told, he always looked backwards. This is how he
could believe in such idiocy as his pangenesis. He plagiarized
lamarck! That's all. And even Lamarck was hardly a trail
blazer himself! It was all well tred ground...
This is exactly like you:-a Not educated but trained like one
of Pavlov's Dogs!-a The absolute easiest thing in the world
would be to look at a myth such as Darwin and saying, "Yeah.
What we are taught about Darwin is a myth. The jackass didn't
even believe in evolution!"
Well it would be easy if you didn't merely accept what was
handed to you....
Darwin's original idea was evolution by natural selection, an
idea that he developed over the course of a few decades.-a Alfred
Russel Wallace discovered the similar idea over the course of a
few hours, wrote it up and sent his manuscript across the World
(Wallace was in southeast Asia at the time) to Darwin!-a It was
Darwin's friends, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, who arranged
for both Darwin and Wallace's papers to be published
simultaneously with a reading at the Linnean Society.
did wallace do any field work? if not, no credits for him.
He did.
If you wish to learn more about Wallace, you can read the
following at your leisure:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/1800s/natural-selection-charles-darwin-alfred-russel-wallace/
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/alfred-wallace/
There are many more site you can read, if you wish, of course.
These are just two of many that detail his part in the theory of
evolution.
On 24/8/2025 10:59 am, JTEM wrote:
Pangenesis
Lamarckism
lysenkoism
All you need is reading comprehension and a rudimentary
ability to deconstruct a problem & propose a test.
I failed to recall these 3 words, though I haven't reviewed my
biology books.
I dunno how you came across them.... likely not from textbooks.
But then biology is now part of a bigger field called life
science. :)
On 8/23/25 7:26 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I am not an expert in anything,
Certainly not Google!
Certainly not deconstructing problems, proposing a test...
Pangenesis. Lysenkoism. Both variations on lamarckism. Darwin's
pangenesis was in line with lysenkoism, and lysenkoism is what
the communist world adopted after BANNING evolution.
What were your search terms?-a How did you attempt to verify this?
Your misogynic anger
Pot, kettle
So, no, you cannot name even one
On 8/23/2025 10:14 PM, JTEM wrote:
Pangenesis. Lysenkoism. Both variations on lamarckism. Darwin's
pangenesis was in line with lysenkoism, and lysenkoism is what
the communist world adopted after BANNING evolution.
What were your search terms?-a How did you attempt to verify this?
We have multiple sub-threads on this one, and so, I am abandoning this particular sub-thread.
i found that comment from jtem very crude and unbecoming of a person of science.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
JTEM wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Darwin is a myth.
Why does the bible tell us to kill white english speaking men?
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 24/8/2025 10:59 am, JTEM wrote:
Pangenesis
Lamarckism
lysenkoism
All you need is reading comprehension and a rudimentary
ability to deconstruct a problem & propose a test.
I failed to recall these 3 words, though I haven't reviewed my biology
books.
I dunno how you came across them.... likely not from textbooks. But
then biology is now part of a bigger field called life science. :)
even bigger, organic chemistry.
Your use of projection amuses me. Please continue.
It is so typical of JTEM to
snip
thanks, it will be at my leisure.
Read the Wikipedia article
On 8/24/25 12:13 PM, jojo wrote:
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 24/8/2025 10:59 am, JTEM wrote:
Pangenesis
Lamarckism
lysenkoism
All you need is reading comprehension and a rudimentary
ability to deconstruct a problem & propose a test.
I failed to recall these 3 words, though I haven't reviewed my
biology books.
I dunno how you came across them.... likely not from
textbooks. But then biology is now part of a bigger field
called life science. :)
even bigger, organic chemistry.
Even bigger:-a Google!
Nobody believs that you consulted a textbook or that you even own
one.
Googling is too much for you!
Google the terms. Don't ask what someone who isn't Darwin said,
go read
what said said!
Who cares
On 8/24/25 12:18 PM, jojo wrote:
i found that comment from jtem very crude and unbecoming of a
person of science.
Nobody here is a person of science. Nobody can deconstruct a
problem,
pose a test. Nobody. If anyone could, nobody would be trying to
"Argue"
with me, they're be arguing the facts.
Yes, I get nothing but twats acting twattie...
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 16:21:58 +0000, jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/18/2025 10:42 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/18/25 8:44 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/18/2025 12:37 PM, JTEM wrote:
I know this. And Darwin AND YOU group with these people,
believing
what you always heard and never challenging or testing.
No way!a Here was the prevailing view prior to Darwin:
Darwin's grandfather was probably the biggest proponent of
common descent in his day. Darwin was simply regurgitating
what he was raised with.
Darwin never looked forward, as an idiot who simply accepted
what was told, he always looked backwards. This is how he
could believe in such idiocy as his pangenesis. He plagiarized
lamarck! That's all. And even Lamarck was hardly a trail
blazer himself! It was all well tred ground...
This is exactly like you:a Not educated but trained like one
of Pavlov's Dogs!a The absolute easiest thing in the world
would be to look at a myth such as Darwin and saying, "Yeah.
What we are taught about Darwin is a myth. The jackass didn't
even believe in evolution!"
Well it would be easy if you didn't merely accept what was
handed to you....
Darwin's original idea was evolution by natural selection, an
idea that he developed over the course of a few decades.a Alfred
Russel Wallace discovered the similar idea over the course of a
few hours, wrote it up and sent his manuscript across the World
(Wallace was in southeast Asia at the time) to Darwin!a It was
Darwin's friends, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, who arranged
for both Darwin and Wallace's papers to be published
simultaneously with a reading at the Linnean Society.
did wallace do any field work? if not, no credits for him.
He did.
If you wish to learn more about Wallace, you can read the
following at your leisure:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/1800s/natural-selection-charles-darwin-alfred-russel-wallace/
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/alfred-wallace/
There are many more site you can read, if you wish, of course.
These are just two of many that detail his part in the theory of
evolution.
thanks, it will be at my leisure.
Kenito Benito wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 14:43:31 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/21/25 12:31 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Honey,
You have a fatal flaw in your argument, and here it is:
EVERYONE MARGINALIZED MENDEL, INCLUDING, MENDEL HIMSELF.
When you were a young child twat -- a Twatling -- did you
care giver ever say to you something like; "If everybody
else jumped off a bridge would you?"
Your misogynic anger serves to PROVE Dawn rattled your cage.
This, in turn, PROVES you lost.
Whine and cry about this truth as much as you need. I will merely
laugh at your further proving you lost. Again.
Or is that still?
i found that comment from jtem very crude and unbecoming of a
person of science.
On 8/23/25 9:01 PM, Kenito Benito wrote:
Your misogynic anger serves to PROVE Dawn rattled your cage.
This, in turn, PROVES you lost.
Whine and cry about this truth as much as you need. I will merely >>laugh at your further proving you lost. Again.
Or is that still?
Yeah, everything is about me.
On 8/23/25 9:00 PM, Kenito Benito wrote:
If you didn't publish such in a peer-reviewed
Stop trolling, you mentally unhinged twat.
Pot, kettle, black much, troll?
Telling the twat collective to STOP trolling
On 8/23/25 9:00 PM, Kenito Benito wrote:
Just out of pure curiosity, can you name a single scholar who agrees
with you??
Back in... 2007, was it? Back then, I got into an "Argument"
with talk.origins.
[...]
So, no, you cannot name even one.
You took a long time to state this.
...person of science who disagrees with me?
i found that comment from jtem very crude and unbecoming of a person of
science.
Nobody here is a person of science.
On 8/24/25 5:55 AM, Kenito Benito wrote:
Your use of projection amuses me. Please continue.
It's not projection. That's just a response that someone once used
against you, and you were too stupid that it wasn't the word but
your projection that made you look like an idiot...
On 8/24/25 9:31 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
It is so typical of JTEM to
snip
This is about Darwin, not what Freud said about Castration
Complexes as you display.
On 8/24/25 9:31 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
It is so typical of JTEM to
snip
This is about Darwin, not what Freud said about Castration
Complexes as you display.
Darwin did not believe in evolution. Period. He believed in
pseudo scientific nonsense call "pangenesis" which actually
grouped him with those who banned -- OUTLAWED -- evolution.
i would define a person of science as anyone who defers to the
scientific method
On 8/25/25 1:45 AM, jojo wrote:
i would define a person of science as anyone who defers to the
scientific method
Which certainly wasn't Darwin.
Didn't you pretend to have read Darwin? WHAT excuse for a "Test," an "Experiment" did you imagine he performed in an attempt to falsify
the bullshit he was spewing?
Then man argued "Logic" and I put it in quote because it was far
from
logical. It was what passed for logical in his mind.
He wasn't a scientist. He failed the basics.
Plus he just didn't believe in evolution. Yes he did eventually use
the term, BUT THAT JUST MAKES IT WORSE!-a I mean,
misusing/misunderstanding the word "Evolution" makes him a BIGGER
IDIOT, not less of one...
If you're faith based, clinging to mythology out of faith -- the
Darwin myth -- you are religious.
On 8/23/25 11:26 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Who cares
You do. You certainly spent a lot of time obsessing over me
on this topic. You obviously care a great deal. And you care
about avoiding knowledge at all cost!-a It's uber important
to you.
Again, your actions reveal this...
Darwin is a myth. You've been lied to your whole life. You've
fallen for it your whole life! They fooled you your whole life.
And THAT is what you can't handle. If they can fool you so
easily, make you believe a fairy tale is "Science" then how
many more times have they made a fool out of you?
LOTS!
On 8/23/25 11:24 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Read the Wikipedia article
Why? What do you have against actual sources instead of claims filtered through usenet trolls dubbed "Wiki Editors?"
How about this:
Map your Wiki "Cite" to what I said. You need to believe it refutes...
what?
HOW do you imagine it refutes it?
Be precise.
On 8/23/25 9:00 PM, Kenito Benito wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a So, no, you cannot name even one
-a-a-a-a-a ...person of science who disagrees with me?
Nope, never found even ONE person who claims that the communist
world did not bad evolution. Not a single source disagrees with
the fact that the communist world officially adopted lysenkoism!
Yep, they all agree that I'm right! All of them. The communist
world BANNED evolution and adopted lysenkoism, and Darwin's
beliefs clustered with THEM and not evolution... everyone agrees
with this fact.
On 8/25/2025 12:50 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/23/25 11:26 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Who cares
You do. You certainly spent a lot of time obsessing over me
on this topic. You obviously care a great deal. And you care
about avoiding knowledge at all cost!-a It's uber important
to you.
Again, your actions reveal this...
Darwin is a myth. You've been lied to your whole life. You've
fallen for it your whole life! They fooled you your whole life.
And THAT is what you can't handle. If they can fool you so
easily, make you believe a fairy tale is "Science" then how
many more times have they made a fool out of you?
LOTS!
Hey, don't enlighten just me and those of us on alt.atheism!
Write a book, and enlighten the whole World!!-a Or, better yet, go
to this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
and "fight the good fight," convince others and win the ensuing
edit war, and please, come back here and let us know!
Dawn
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:108gkue$36kvf$4@dont-email.me:
On 8/24/25 9:31 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
It is so typical of JTEM to
snip
This is about Darwin, not what Freud said about Castration
Complexes as you display.
No, this is about you snipping
out entire conversations when they
prove you wrong or you cannot answer
a question.
That is why so few people bother
responding to you.
i'll be honest, i dont really care that much about darwin or wallce.
Great job of further proving you lost.
So your answer is
The question isn't about any disagreeing with you
On 8/25/25 1:38 AM, jojo wrote:
i'll be honest, i dont really care that much about darwin or
wallce.
Nor the integrity of science, it seems.
On 8/25/2025 8:04 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
news:108gkue$36kvf$4@dont-email.me:
On 8/24/25 9:31 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a It is so typical of JTEM to
snip
This is about Darwin, not what Freud said about Castration
Complexes as you display.
-a-a-a-a-a No, this is about you snipping
out entire conversations when they
prove you wrong or you cannot answer
a question.
-a-a-a-a-a That is why so few people bother
responding to you.
It's hard to know who we're dealing with here sometimes.-a I would
really need to know JTEM's age before recommending therapy, loss
of Internet privileges, grounding, a paddling, etc.
Dawn
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:108gkue$36kvf$4@dont-email.me:
On 8/24/25 9:31 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
It is so typical of JTEM to
snip
This is about Darwin, not what Freud said about Castration
Complexes as you display.
No, this is about you snipping
out entire conversations when they
prove you wrong or you cannot answer
a question.
That is why so few people bother
responding to you.
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/25/2025 12:50 AM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/23/25 11:26 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Who cares
You do. You certainly spent a lot of time obsessing over me
on this topic. You obviously care a great deal. And you care
about avoiding knowledge at all cost!a It's uber important
to you.
Again, your actions reveal this...
Darwin is a myth. You've been lied to your whole life. You've
fallen for it your whole life! They fooled you your whole life.
And THAT is what you can't handle. If they can fool you so
easily, make you believe a fairy tale is "Science" then how
many more times have they made a fool out of you?
LOTS!
Hey, don't enlighten just me and those of us on alt.atheism!
Write a book, and enlighten the whole World!!a Or, better yet, go
to this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
and "fight the good fight," convince others and win the ensuing
edit war, and please, come back here and let us know!
Dawn
there are many websites where you can publish your own book.. i
think amazon has a thing kinda like that, not sure.
On 8/25/25 1:38 AM, jojo wrote:You can understand science without names!! Science is about matter, not
i'll be honest, i dont really care that much about darwin or wallce.
Nor the integrity of science, it seems.
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:38 AM, jojo wrote:
i'll be honest, i dont really care that much about darwin or wallce.
Nor the integrity of science, it seems.
i am a person of science, fyi.
You can understand science without names!!
The communists have banned a lot of things
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/25/2025 8:04 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:108gkue$36kvf$4@dont-email.me:
On 8/24/25 9:31 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a It is so typical of JTEM to
snip
This is about Darwin, not what Freud said about Castration
Complexes as you display.
-a-a-a-a-a No, this is about you snipping
out entire conversations when they
prove you wrong or you cannot answer
a question.
-a-a-a-a-a That is why so few people bother
responding to you.
It's hard to know who we're dealing with here sometimes.-a I would
really need to know JTEM's age before recommending therapy, loss of
Internet privileges, grounding, a paddling, etc.
Dawn
jtem is probably 10, he told me about his friend the other day who was
also 10.
On 8/25/25 2:23 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
The communists have banned a lot of things
One of those things was evolution, yet they couldn't have a
problem with Darwin's beliefs!
See that?
They BANNED evolution, outlawed it, but wouldn't have had
an issue with Darwin's beliefs...
Darwin did not believe in evolution.
Darwin's one "Theory" -- pangenesis -- grouped him with the
communist world and NOT real science.
On 8/25/2025 10:47 PM, jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/25/2025 8:04 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
news:108gkue$36kvf$4@dont-email.me:
On 8/24/25 9:31 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a It is so typical of JTEM to
snip
This is about Darwin, not what Freud said about Castration
Complexes as you display.
-a-a-a-a-a No, this is about you snipping
out entire conversations when they
prove you wrong or you cannot answer
a question.
-a-a-a-a-a That is why so few people bother
responding to you.
It's hard to know who we're dealing with here sometimes.-a I
would really need to know JTEM's age before recommending
therapy, loss of Internet privileges, grounding, a paddling, etc.
Dawn
jtem is probably 10, he told me about his friend the other day
who was also 10.
He certainly acts like it!-a If he was my kiddo, his Internet
would be gone, and if he went around me, he would feel it, and we
would "rinse & repeat" as often as was necessary.-a (From my
experience, the first round usually does the trick; if not that,
the second.)
Dawn
On 8/25/25 11:44 PM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:38 AM, jojo wrote:
i'll be honest, i dont really care that much about darwin or
wallce.
Nor the integrity of science, it seems.
i am a person of science, fyi.
And yet care not a wit for the integrity of science.
Darwin is a myth. It's fraud. People are taught a myth.
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 11:44 PM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:38 AM, jojo wrote:
i'll be honest, i dont really care that much about darwin or
wallce.
Nor the integrity of science, it seems.
i am a person of science, fyi.
And yet care not a wit for the integrity of science.
Darwin is a myth. It's fraud. People are taught a myth.
i think we can separate the science from the personality, yea?
its not politics.
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/25/2025 10:47 PM, jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/25/2025 8:04 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:108gkue$36kvf$4@dont-email.me: >>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:31 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a It is so typical of JTEM to
snip
This is about Darwin, not what Freud said about Castration
Complexes as you display.
-a-a-a-a-a No, this is about you snipping
out entire conversations when they
prove you wrong or you cannot answer
a question.
-a-a-a-a-a That is why so few people bother
responding to you.
It's hard to know who we're dealing with here sometimes.-a I would
really need to know JTEM's age before recommending therapy, loss of
Internet privileges, grounding, a paddling, etc.
Dawn
jtem is probably 10, he told me about his friend the other day who
was also 10.
He certainly acts like it!-a If he was my kiddo, his Internet would be
gone, and if he went around me, he would feel it, and we would "rinse
& repeat" as often as was necessary.-a (From my experience, the first
round usually does the trick; if not that, the second.)
Dawn
taking away internet is cruel.
On 8/26/2025 7:04 PM, jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/25/2025 10:47 PM, jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/25/2025 8:04 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
news:108gkue$36kvf$4@dont-email.me:
On 8/24/25 9:31 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a It is so typical of JTEM to
snip
This is about Darwin, not what Freud said about Castration
Complexes as you display.
-a-a-a-a-a No, this is about you snipping
out entire conversations when they
prove you wrong or you cannot answer
a question.
-a-a-a-a-a That is why so few people bother
responding to you.
It's hard to know who we're dealing with here sometimes.-a I
would really need to know JTEM's age before recommending
therapy, loss of Internet privileges, grounding, a paddling,
etc.
Dawn
jtem is probably 10, he told me about his friend the other
day who was also 10.
He certainly acts like it!-a If he was my kiddo, his Internet
would be gone, and if he went around me, he would feel it, and
we would "rinse & repeat" as often as was necessary.-a (From my
experience, the first round usually does the trick; if not
that, the second.)
Dawn
taking away internet is cruel.
No, it is not!-a Usenet is for adults; as such, children & teens
should not, IMO, be posting here!!
Dawn
jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 11:44 PM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:38 AM, jojo wrote:
i'll be honest, i dont really care that much about darwin or
wallce.
Nor the integrity of science, it seems.
i am a person of science, fyi.
And yet care not a wit for the integrity of science.
Darwin is a myth. It's fraud. People are taught a myth.
i think we can separate the science from the personality, yea?
its not politics.
oh mr. chan already mentioned that, i would add, with evolution
we are far closer to the truth than any man-god made books.
jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote in news:e3666af7-9fbc-508a-5f15- f7f321cc431d@shinku.aoyagi.konjou:
jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 11:44 PM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:38 AM, jojo wrote:
i'll be honest, i dont really care that much about darwin or
wallce.
Nor the integrity of science, it seems.
i am a person of science, fyi.
And yet care not a wit for the integrity of science.
Darwin is a myth. It's fraud. People are taught a myth.
i think we can separate the science from the personality, yea?
its not politics.
oh mr. chan already mentioned that, i would add, with evolution
we are far closer to the truth than any man-god made books.
There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone
who produces an alternative theory to Darwin
with proof.
On 8/26/2025 8:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote in news:e3666af7-9fbc-508a-5f15-
f7f321cc431d@shinku.aoyagi.konjou:
jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 11:44 PM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:38 AM, jojo wrote:
i'll be honest, i dont really care that much about darwin or
wallce.
Nor the integrity of science, it seems.
i am a person of science, fyi.
And yet care not a wit for the integrity of science.
Darwin is a myth. It's fraud. People are taught a myth.
i think we can separate the science from the personality, yea?
its not politics.
oh mr. chan already mentioned that, i would add, with evolution
we are far closer to the truth than any man-god made books.
-a-a-a There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone
who produces an alternative theory to Darwin
with proof.
Excellent point!-a Hopefully, "Mom" will take away JTEM's Internet
soon, and we can all enjoy a little more peace here for at least
a few months.
You certainly are
Thank you for
If you
No, this is about you snipping
i never said i read darwin, are
Hey, don't enlighten just
Charles Darwin was one of the most influential thinkers of all time
Oh, child, let me understand your logic:
Since the communists banned Darwin
i think we can separate the science from the personality, yea?
On 8/26/25 8:06 PM, jojo wrote:
i think we can separate the science from the personality, yea?
The "Science" you learn from the schools, the same schools that
preach mythology and order you to believe that it's science.
We have to purge the schools of idiocy. They are NOT supposed
to make students dumber.
i feel all learning should be project based
On 8/25/25 2:16 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Hey, don't enlighten just
You clearly believe that reality can be altered by way of a
popularity contest.
You honestly are divorced from anything that might be taken
for "Science" or objective reality...
Did you do the Google on Darwin's pangenesis? Lamarackism?
Lysenkoism?
Or are you just not ready to accept reality unless there's
a crowd you can hide in, or some high priest tells you that
you must?
On 8/25/25 2:20 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Charles Darwin was one of the most influential thinkers of all time
If by that you mean that he did more damage to science and biology
than just about anyone else, you're right!
Did you Google it? See how long it took for the English Speaking
world to rediscover Mendel's work, how long it took for the
English speaking world to figure out inheritance?
ALL BECAUSE OF DARWIN!
And the jackass is STILL polluting minds!-a Just look at you,
incapable of thinking just because of Darwin...
On 8/26/25 6:17 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Oh, child, let me understand your logic:
Since the communists banned Darwin
They did not ban Darwin. Darwin is NOT evolution. They banned evolution,
yes, and the myth of Darwin.
We, the west, should ban the myth of Darwin right now!-a The man deserves
no credit what so ever. He didn't discover anything. He did immense harm
to science by becoming the name & face of naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
Darwin needs to be erased. Cancelled. Not because he was a worthless, flatulent racist but because he doesn't belong to science of history.
He accomplished nothing but great harm.
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/26/2025 8:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote in news:e3666af7-9fbc-508a-5f15-
f7f321cc431d@shinku.aoyagi.konjou:
jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 11:44 PM, jojo wrote:
JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:38 AM, jojo wrote:
i'll be honest, i dont really care that much about darwin or >>>>>>>>> wallce.
Nor the integrity of science, it seems.
i am a person of science, fyi.
And yet care not a wit for the integrity of science.
Darwin is a myth. It's fraud. People are taught a myth.
i think we can separate the science from the personality, yea?
its not politics.
oh mr. chan already mentioned that, i would add, with evolution
we are far closer to the truth than any man-god made books.
-a-a-a There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone
who produces an alternative theory to Darwin
with proof.
Excellent point!-a Hopefully, "Mom" will take away JTEM's Internet
soon, and we can all enjoy a little more peace here for at least a few
months.
that's not how it usually works, it might last a few days but eventually
the pressure to fill time will break her.
On 8/25/25 9:04 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
No, this is about you snipping
No. Your sexual inadequacies are independent of me or anything
I say. This is about the fact that everything you believe about
Darwin is a myth. You have been fooled.
Darwin's topic was "Common Descent." It wasn't his idea. It was
a very old idea, many sources date it back to ancient times, but
Darwin came to it via his grandfather. Darwin's grandfather was
not a moron, unlike Darwin, and he was a huge proponent of
common descent.
It was WALLACE, not Darwin, who came up with "Natural Selection."
Darwin never understood the topic, much less originated anything.
Darwin's one and only "Theory" was pangenesis. It was lamarckism
with Darwin's added "Gemmules" idiocy. Darwin believed that if
you built up your leg muscles then your leg muscles would produce
"Built up leg muscles" gemmules. These would travel to your
gonads -- assuming you had any -- and would be passed on to your
offspring which would be born with built up leg muscles. In the
Soviet world, WHICH OUTLAWED EVOLUTION, they tried to use this
idiocy (their version was called lysenkoism) on wheat. There's a
lot of land in Siberia so they thought if they kept cooling down
wheat it was learn to grow in the cold of Siberia...
Yes Darwin was a raging jackass! He not only didn't believe in
evolution but, he actually had the secrets to inheritance handed
to him already -- BEFORE he came up with his idiotic pangenesis!
By becoming the name & face of naturalism and rejecting real
science, throwing away Mendel, the English speaking world was set
back 20 years! It took that long for Mendel's work to be
rediscovered by some useless Brit who tried to rob all the credit
for it...
I would like to know
You snipped
On 8/27/2025 12:39 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/25/25 2:16 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
Hey, don't enlighten just
You clearly believe that reality can be altered by way of a
popularity contest.
You honestly are divorced from anything that might be taken
for "Science" or objective reality...
Did you do the Google on Darwin's pangenesis? Lamarackism?
Lysenkoism?
Or are you just not ready to accept reality unless there's
a crowd you can hide in, or some high priest tells you that
you must?
Honey, what's your point?! That Darwin got some things wrong?! Well,
duh!! Did you know that Aristotle believed that women were not fully >human?? Of course, such proves that he was a jerk, but as philosophers
go, he is still ranked quite high on the list.
Dawn
On 8/27/25 4:36 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I would like to know
This is difficult for me, as anything I say, no matter how honest, you
will just use the power of your mental illnesses to brush off as a
quip...
You are NOT intellectually capable of discussing this topic. You
don't understand it and clearly lack the ability to deconstruct any
problem, perform any type of analysis & pose a test. Instead, you
throw out ridiculous -- LAUGHABLE -- demands for some sort of
popularity contest ("write a book!") or for me to produce some
sort of high priest to bestow upon you all truths...
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You're just a waste.
Instead, I will either ignore you or use your babbling as an excuse
to reiterate my points. But I'm not going to trouble anyone with
you anymore.
On 8/27/2025 11:20 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/27/25 4:36 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I would like to know
This is difficult for me, as anything I say, no matter how honest, you
will just use the power of your mental illnesses to brush off as a
quip...
You are NOT intellectually capable of discussing this topic. You
don't understand it and clearly lack the ability to deconstruct any
problem, perform any type of analysis & pose a test. Instead, you
throw out ridiculous -- LAUGHABLE -- demands for some sort of
popularity contest ("write a book!") or for me to produce some
sort of high priest to bestow upon you all truths...
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You're just a waste.
Instead, I will either ignore you or use your babbling as an excuse
to reiterate my points. But I'm not going to trouble anyone with
you anymore.
That's fine.-a Even though I have asked you this several times now, why
no mention of Ronald A. Fisher.-a Do you think that he was an idiot, also??
Dawn
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/27/2025 11:20 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/27/25 4:36 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I would like to know
This is difficult for me, as anything I say, no matter how honest, you
will just use the power of your mental illnesses to brush off as a
quip...
You are NOT intellectually capable of discussing this topic. You
don't understand it and clearly lack the ability to deconstruct any
problem, perform any type of analysis & pose a test. Instead, you
throw out ridiculous -- LAUGHABLE -- demands for some sort of
popularity contest ("write a book!") or for me to produce some
sort of high priest to bestow upon you all truths...
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You're just a waste.
Instead, I will either ignore you or use your babbling as an excuse
to reiterate my points. But I'm not going to trouble anyone with
you anymore.
That's fine.-a Even though I have asked you this several times now, why
no mention of Ronald A. Fisher.-a Do you think that he was an idiot,
also??
Dawn
he crossposted like one
On 8/26/25 6:59 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
You can understand science without names!!
Pretending that you're NOT a severely disordered troll, you're
saying this in DEFENSE OF fraud. You are defending A LIE. You're
not passive here, you are active. You are actively defending a
lie and pretending you care about science.
You care about your scriptures.
On 8/28/2025 9:23 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/27/2025 11:20 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/27/25 4:36 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I would like to know
This is difficult for me, as anything I say, no matter how honest, you >>>> will just use the power of your mental illnesses to brush off as a
quip...
You are NOT intellectually capable of discussing this topic. You
don't understand it and clearly lack the ability to deconstruct any
problem, perform any type of analysis & pose a test. Instead, you
throw out ridiculous -- LAUGHABLE -- demands for some sort of
popularity contest ("write a book!") or for me to produce some
sort of high priest to bestow upon you all truths...
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You're just a waste.
Instead, I will either ignore you or use your babbling as an excuse
to reiterate my points. But I'm not going to trouble anyone with
you anymore.
That's fine.-a Even though I have asked you this several times now,
why no mention of Ronald A. Fisher.-a Do you think that he was an
idiot, also??
Dawn
he crossposted like one
The alt.conspiracy forum is perfect for JTEM!
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/28/2025 9:23 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/27/2025 11:20 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/27/25 4:36 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I would like to know
This is difficult for me, as anything I say, no matter how honest, you >>>>> will just use the power of your mental illnesses to brush off as a
quip...
You are NOT intellectually capable of discussing this topic. You
don't understand it and clearly lack the ability to deconstruct any
problem, perform any type of analysis & pose a test. Instead, you
throw out ridiculous -- LAUGHABLE -- demands for some sort of
popularity contest ("write a book!") or for me to produce some
sort of high priest to bestow upon you all truths...
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You're just a waste.
Instead, I will either ignore you or use your babbling as an excuse
to reiterate my points. But I'm not going to trouble anyone with
you anymore.
That's fine.-a Even though I have asked you this several times now,
why no mention of Ronald A. Fisher.-a Do you think that he was an
idiot, also??
Dawn
he crossposted like one
The alt.conspiracy forum is perfect for JTEM!
give him another week or so and he'll be gone for months
On 8/29/2025 10:49 AM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/28/2025 9:23 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/27/2025 11:20 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/27/25 4:36 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I would like to know
This is difficult for me, as anything I say, no matter how
honest, you
will just use the power of your mental illnesses to brush
off as a
quip...
You are NOT intellectually capable of discussing this
topic. You
don't understand it and clearly lack the ability to
deconstruct any
problem, perform any type of analysis & pose a test.
Instead, you
throw out ridiculous -- LAUGHABLE -- demands for some sort of
popularity contest ("write a book!") or for me to produce some
sort of high priest to bestow upon you all truths...
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You're just a waste.
Instead, I will either ignore you or use your babbling as
an excuse
to reiterate my points. But I'm not going to trouble anyone
with
you anymore.
That's fine.-a Even though I have asked you this several
times now, why no mention of Ronald A. Fisher.-a Do you think
that he was an idiot, also??
Dawn
he crossposted like one
The alt.conspiracy forum is perfect for JTEM!
give him another week or so and he'll be gone for months
Fingers (and toes) crossed!
If Charles Darwin did not believe in "evolution", why did his name
appear 74 times
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/29/2025 10:49 AM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/28/2025 9:23 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/27/2025 11:20 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/27/25 4:36 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I would like to know
This is difficult for me, as anything I say, no matter how
honest, you
will just use the power of your mental illnesses to brush off as a >>>>>>> quip...
You are NOT intellectually capable of discussing this topic. You >>>>>>> don't understand it and clearly lack the ability to deconstruct any >>>>>>> problem, perform any type of analysis & pose a test. Instead, you >>>>>>> throw out ridiculous -- LAUGHABLE -- demands for some sort of
popularity contest ("write a book!") or for me to produce some
sort of high priest to bestow upon you all truths...
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You're just a waste.
Instead, I will either ignore you or use your babbling as an excuse >>>>>>> to reiterate my points. But I'm not going to trouble anyone with >>>>>>> you anymore.
That's fine.-a Even though I have asked you this several times now, >>>>>> why no mention of Ronald A. Fisher.-a Do you think that he was an >>>>>> idiot, also??
Dawn
he crossposted like one
The alt.conspiracy forum is perfect for JTEM!
give him another week or so and he'll be gone for months
Fingers (and toes) crossed!
i have seen jtem in other groups when i was researching groups. i still
have many groups left to check. but he he was mostly in these.. i
forgot, but he's there.
On 8/29/25 10:05 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
If Charles Darwin did not believe in "evolution", why did his name
appear 74 times
You are so outstandingly STUPID that I'm at a loss. I feel that I
want to insult you but have no hope of matching, much less
exceeding, the insult that nature has so clearly dealt you...
IF you want to pretend to be able to grasp words that lay before
you then address what I stated. I gave you a chain to follow --
all of three links in length -- which brought you to the fact that
Darwin is a myth, that the real Darwin never even believed in
evolution. And instead of evaluating the facts presented, instead
of dealing with the facts you habitually vomit fallacious
"Arguments" the likes of which would get you dismissed from any
high school level debating team... "I want authorities to tell me
what things mean," and "if what you say is true, why isn't it more
popular?"
Pangenesis. Lysenkoism. Lamarckism.
Shades of gray separate them, AT BEST. Each is just a slight
rephrasing of the next. AND, it is exactly what Darwin believed
and EXACTLY what the people who banned "evolution" believed.
Pretend you're normal and address this fact.
On 8/29/2025 5:06 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/29/25 10:05 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
If Charles Darwin did not believe in "evolution", why did his name
appear 74 times
You are so outstandingly STUPID that I'm at a loss. I feel that I
want to insult you but have no hope of matching, much less
exceeding, the insult that nature has so clearly dealt you...
IF you want to pretend to be able to grasp words that lay before
you then address what I stated. I gave you a chain to follow --
all of three links in length -- which brought you to the fact that
Darwin is a myth, that the real Darwin never even believed in
evolution. And instead of evaluating the facts presented, instead
of dealing with the facts you habitually vomit fallacious
"Arguments" the likes of which would get you dismissed from any
high school level debating team... "I want authorities to tell me
what things mean," and "if what you say is true, why isn't it more
popular?"
Pangenesis. Lysenkoism. Lamarckism.
Shades of gray separate them, AT BEST. Each is just a slight
rephrasing of the next. AND, it is exactly what Darwin believed
and EXACTLY what the people who banned "evolution" believed.
Pretend you're normal and address this fact.
Well, why did the Scopes Trial even happen then?
What was the big
deal?? Why did BOTH sides even mention Darwin? And, why no mention of
the fact that Darwin did *not* "believe" in evolution??
Dawn
On 8/29/25 10:05 AM, Dawn Flood wrote:
If Charles Darwin did not believe in "evolution", why did his name
appear 74 times
You are so outstandingly STUPID that I'm at a loss. I feel that I
want to insult you but have no hope of matching, much less
exceeding, the insult that nature has so clearly dealt you...
IF you want to pretend to be able to grasp words that lay before
you then address what I stated. I gave you a chain to follow --
all of three links in length -- which brought you to the fact that
Darwin is a myth, that the real Darwin never even believed in
evolution. And instead of evaluating the facts presented, instead
of dealing with the facts you habitually vomit fallacious
"Arguments" the likes of which would get you dismissed from any
high school level debating team... "I want authorities to tell me
what things mean," and "if what you say is true, why isn't it more
popular?"
Pangenesis. Lysenkoism. Lamarckism.
Shades of gray separate them, AT BEST. Each is just a slight
rephrasing of the next. AND, it is exactly what Darwin believed
and EXACTLY what the people who banned "evolution" believed.
Pretend you're normal and address this fact.
On 8/29/2025 11:25 AM, jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/29/2025 10:49 AM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/28/2025 9:23 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/27/2025 11:20 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/27/25 4:36 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I would like to know
This is difficult for me, as anything I say, no matter how
honest, you
will just use the power of your mental illnesses to brush off as a >>>>>>>> quip...
You are NOT intellectually capable of discussing this topic. You >>>>>>>> don't understand it and clearly lack the ability to deconstruct any >>>>>>>> problem, perform any type of analysis & pose a test. Instead, you >>>>>>>> throw out ridiculous -- LAUGHABLE -- demands for some sort of
popularity contest ("write a book!") or for me to produce some >>>>>>>> sort of high priest to bestow upon you all truths...
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You're just a waste. >>>>>>>> Instead, I will either ignore you or use your babbling as an excuse >>>>>>>> to reiterate my points. But I'm not going to trouble anyone with >>>>>>>> you anymore.
That's fine.-a Even though I have asked you this several times
now, why no mention of Ronald A. Fisher.-a Do you think that he >>>>>>> was an idiot, also??
Dawn
he crossposted like one
The alt.conspiracy forum is perfect for JTEM!
give him another week or so and he'll be gone for months
Fingers (and toes) crossed!
i have seen jtem in other groups when i was researching groups. i
still have many groups left to check. but he he was mostly in these..
i forgot, but he's there.
Keep talking to him there; maybe he will leave us alone!!
Dawn
That's fine.-a Even though I have asked you
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/28/2025 9:23 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/27/2025 11:20 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/27/25 4:36 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I would like to know
This is difficult for me, as anything I say, no matter how honest, you >>>>> will just use the power of your mental illnesses to brush off as a
quip...
You are NOT intellectually capable of discussing this topic. You
don't understand it and clearly lack the ability to deconstruct any
problem, perform any type of analysis & pose a test. Instead, you
throw out ridiculous -- LAUGHABLE -- demands for some sort of
popularity contest ("write a book!") or for me to produce some
sort of high priest to bestow upon you all truths...
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You're just a waste.
Instead, I will either ignore you or use your babbling as an excuse
to reiterate my points. But I'm not going to trouble anyone with
you anymore.
That's fine.a Even though I have asked you this several times now,
why no mention of Ronald A. Fisher.a Do you think that he was an
idiot, also??
Dawn
he crossposted like one
The alt.conspiracy forum is perfect for JTEM!
give him another week or so and he'll be gone for months
We can hope.
On 8/29/2025 11:25 AM, jojo wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/29/2025 10:49 AM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/28/2025 9:23 PM, % wrote:
Dawn Flood wrote:
On 8/27/2025 11:20 PM, JTEM wrote:
On 8/27/25 4:36 PM, Dawn Flood wrote:
I would like to know
This is difficult for me, as anything I say, no matter
how honest, you
will just use the power of your mental illnesses to brush
off as a
quip...
You are NOT intellectually capable of discussing this
topic. You
don't understand it and clearly lack the ability to
deconstruct any
problem, perform any type of analysis & pose a test.
Instead, you
throw out ridiculous -- LAUGHABLE -- demands for some
sort of
popularity contest ("write a book!") or for me to produce
some
sort of high priest to bestow upon you all truths...
I'm not going to bother with you anymore. You're just a
waste.
Instead, I will either ignore you or use your babbling as
an excuse
to reiterate my points. But I'm not going to trouble
anyone with
you anymore.
That's fine.-a Even though I have asked you this several
times now, why no mention of Ronald A. Fisher.-a Do you
think that he was an idiot, also??
Dawn
he crossposted like one
The alt.conspiracy forum is perfect for JTEM!
give him another week or so and he'll be gone for months
Fingers (and toes) crossed!
i have seen jtem in other groups when i was researching groups.
i still have many groups left to check. but he he was mostly in
these.. i forgot, but he's there.
Keep talking to him there; maybe he will leave us alone!!
Dawn