Why did Darwin publish lies about gemmules? Your ring leader and religious icon

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Show me a jar of gemmules.

If you want to play politics and cover his untested nonscience lie, pretend you can define his lie as something other than a lie.

Bafoonery

He suggested that all cells in an organism are capable of shedding minute particles he called gemmules, which are able to circulate throughout the body and finally congregate in the gonads.


What an idiot

These particles are then transmitted to the next generation and are responsible for the transmission of characteristics from parent to offspring. If any cells of the parent undergo changes as a result of environmental change, they will consequently transmit modified gemmules to their offspring. Soon after Darwin's pangenetic theory was published, Francis Galton designed a series of blood transfusion experiments on differently pigmented rabbits to test its validity.

So his false claims of Pangenesis were sent to the trash.

He turned his fantasies into false claims.

I am thankful God is all knowing and In The Beginning had no need to rely on the speculationism and subprime evo diploma mills.
 
Show me a jar of gemmules.

If you want to play politics and cover his untested nonscience lie, pretend you can define his lie as something other than a lie.

Bafoonery




What an idiot



So his false claims of Pangenesis were sent to the trash.

He turned his fantasies into false claims.

I am thankful God is all knowing and In The Beginning had no need to rely on the speculationism and subprime evo diploma mills.

All of your ranting about gemmules shows that you don't really understand how the process of science works. As @Mr Laurier has already pointed out the gemmule hypothesis was debunked over 150 years ago.

Science works by hypothesis (such as gemmules) being proposed and then tested. If the hypothesis is shown to be correct then it is added to the body of scientific understanding as being correct. If it is found to be incorrect then it is also added to our scientific understanding but as something that is incorrect. Both results benefit us because it helps to show us what is wrong and what is right.

Perhaps you should learn about the way in which science is done, rather than ranting about hypothesis that were rejected over 150 years ago.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
All of your ranting about gemmules shows that you don't really understand how the process of science works. As @Mr Laurier has already pointed out the gemmule hypothesis was debunked over 150 years ago.

Science works by hypothesis (such as gemmules) being proposed and then tested. If the hypothesis is shown to be correct then it is added to the body of scientific understanding as being correct. If it is found to be incorrect then it is also added to our scientific understanding but as something that is incorrect. Both results benefit us because it helps to show us what is wrong and what is right.

Perhaps you should learn about the way in which science is done, rather than ranting about hypothesis that were rejected over 150 years ago.
Indeed. The gemmules hypothesis was popular in the early 1800s. A young Charles Darwin was taught about it while he was a schoolboy.
And subsequently Mr Darwin went on too expose the same gemmules hypothesis as a mistake.
That the OP insists that Darwin lied about gemmules, means that it is HE, The OP who must show US the jar of gemmules... since his whole position depends on Darwin deliberately concealing the existence of gemmules.
So yes. it is up to Authentic Nouveau to provide the jar of gemmules.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
Show me a jar of gemmules.
Actually, its YOU that has to show US a jar of gemmules, since YOUR claim depends on them existing.
Mr Darwin demonstrated that the gemmule hypothesis was wrong.
You claim that he was lying. So you have to show that the gemmule hypothesis is right.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Darwin lied about Gemmules

I have the tools to determine his lies from a biology approach. I can ask for samples.

I also have unique training and tools to determine it is lying by how his handlers act.

liars obfuscate and go into diversion and assorted activities we are trained to notice when we watch criminals lie in interrogation.

Insulting Authentic Nouveau is totally expected by me because liars do that.

It is so simple. He invented an actual name Gemmules. If he was a microbiologist, and discovered a Nouveau organism, it makes sense that it didn't have a name until it was discovered.
 
Darwin lied about Gemmules

I have the tools to determine his lies from a biology approach. I can ask for samples.

I also have unique training and tools to determine it is lying by how his handlers act.

liars obfuscate and go into diversion and assorted activities we are trained to notice when we watch criminals lie in interrogation.

Insulting Authentic Nouveau is totally expected by me because liars do that.

It is so simple. He invented an actual name Gemmules. If he was a microbiologist, and discovered a Nouveau organism, it makes sense that it didn't have a name until it was discovered.
Darwin did not lie about Gemmules, he proposed a hypothesis, which was subsequently shown to be false.

This is how science works. You clearly know less about the way science works than you do about economics, or basic maths.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
Who has a jar of Gemmules
You should.
You claim that Darwin lied about gemmules.
What did Darwin actually say about them?
He said they were a mistaken hypothesis. He said they are a dead end, and not real.
So you need to produce some.
Show that Darwin lied. Produce a jar of gemmules.
Go ahead.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
You should.
You claim that Darwin lied about gemmules.
What did Darwin actually say about them?
He said they were a mistaken hypothesis. He said they are a dead end, and not real.
So you need to produce some.
Show that Darwin lied. Produce a jar of gemmules.
Go ahead.
So why did he lie?

Why did Satan have dirty Chuckster invent a name for something that never existed?

Don't ty your trick of avoiding questions unless that is how you covertly agree he lied.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
So why did he lie?

Why did Satan have dirty Chuckster invent a name for something that never existed?

Don't ty your trick of avoiding questions unless that is how you covertly agree he lied.
Show that he did actualy lie. Produce a jar of gemmules.

Whyever you want. What is "dirty Chuckster"?

What trick of avoiding questions? I do not agree that he lied. Indeed I stand by the facts. Darwin did not lie.
Its up to YOU to show that not only was he wrong about gemmules not existing, but that he was deliberately deceptive about it.
You need to show that gemmules exist, and that Darwin deliberately concealed this fact.
You might also explain why he would do so.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
I am doing research and actually observe how evoPushers defend lies from their ring leader.
So you observe a fantasy. Got it.
Your "evoPushers" is/are still imaginary.

And still you provide no gemmules. The burden is on you to produce gemmules. Your whole position rests on two points.
That gemmules really do exist. And that Mr Darwin deliberately concealed that gemmules exist.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
And it appears that A N is now reduced to making up imaginary boogiemen.
He has no evidence to support his clam that Darwin lied about gemmules. So he must instead try to change the topic.
 
Top