Darwin: "the New Zealander... compares his future fate with that of the native rat no

[davidford]

Ianjo99 wrote:

I don’t really care what “legerdemain” has to say about
evolution. I said scientific theory of evolution because it has
to do with what happens “in science”.

Q: Do you consider Nazi medical personnel shooting chemicals into women at Auschwitz to make them unfertile/ sterile “science”?

If ‘No’:
Q: How come you don’t consider shooting chemicals into women at Auschwitz to make them unfertile/ sterile “science”-- what’s your reasoning?

Being a “scientific”
theory means that it is inherently different from a theory in
normal use. A scientific theory is one normally backed by a
great deal of evidence and support.

“A scientific theory is one normally backed by a great deal of evidence and support.”
What are 3 of the stronger lines of evidence in support of Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936 A. Franklin Shull
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com

Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS’s “crazy-quilt” prediction
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com

Theory: talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

Evolution means: (as from Webster’s Dictionary)

Biology.

1. Change in the genetic composition of a population
   during successive generations, as a result of natural
   selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals,
   and resulting in the development of new species.

Meaning of “species”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net

1. The historical development of a related group of
   organisms; phylogeny.

How is this “historical development” known? Through interviews with surviving dinosaurs and other now-extinct organisms?

I think the point you are missing is; even if Darwin wrote a
three hundred page article supporting eugenics, Nazism,
and Margret Sanger, IT WOULDN"T MATTER. Scientists
have done a myriad of experiments and a large number of
research to conclude that evolution is the most likely the
process of nature.

“evolution is the most likely the process of nature”
Meaning of “evolution”?

I have no idea why you keep throwing articles about the
supposed “connection” between evolution and amoral
activites. Do you not get that even a direct connection
indicates NOTHING about its scientific relevance?

I don’t know what you mean by “scientific relevance.”

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html

Hitler and Darwin:
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

Survival of the fittest:
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002.html

Do you think it’s any coincidence that pretty much all
Universities in the world teach evolution from Freshman level
up?

No.

how has the theory of NS survived?:
Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, 1929 D. M. S. Watson
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234718.51C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

In science the debate is pretty much closed that
evolution exists.

Meaning of “evolution”?

Science isn’t going to change because
nonscientists don’t want it to be true.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Evolution is what happens when you get imperfect replicators competing for scarce resources.

 

[davidford]

EnterTheBowser:

Evolution is what happens when you get imperfect replicators competing for scarce resources.

3 illustrations, please.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
concept of “blindwatchmaking”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com

legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Agree with J. Huxley’s “no”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405271915.6b9b6ce1%40posting.google.com

 

[ThisOne]

David,

Could you please state your position on the question? I’m reading this thread but am unable to determine what you are intending to propound as a statement of what the truth to you is.

Thanks. I’ve attempted to read a few of the links you provided, but there’s just too much to handle, and in one case where I wanted to see the conclusion of a very long paper, Google could not deliver it.

Can you summarize your position? I see that I am not the only one who has that question, so your reponse will, I’m sure, be much appreciated by many people here.

I am not an expert in any of this, but I’d like to at least be able to see summarizations of the various positions.

 

[davidford]

ThisOne:

David,

Could you please state your position on the question?

State my position on what “question”?

I’m reading this
thread but am unable to determine what you are intending to propound as
a statement of what the truth to you is.

Thanks. I’ve attempted to read a few of the links you provided, but
there’s just too much to handle, and in one case where I wanted to see the
conclusion of a very long paper, Google could not deliver it.

What was the very long paper about?

(viewing the original in Google should give the complete paper)

Can you summarize your position?

About what issue(s)?

I see that I am not the only one who
has that question, so your reponse will, I’m sure, be much appreciated
by many people here.

I am not an expert in any of this, but I’d like to at least be able to
see summarizations of the various positions.

 

[Ianjo99]

Stop asking me to define my terms, it is a weak and childish form of argument. But, for the sake of entertaining your ideas, here ya go:

“Is shooting…science?” - Yes, in a twisted and very demented sense, it is science, albeit extreme and unethical science. I don’t know what you hope to gain by our admittance of that.

3 stronger lines of evidence? Oh I don’t know, maybe the hundreds of duplicated microevolutionary experiments. Perhaps the pure existance of a diverse fossil record. I guarentee you could look up a scienctific journal such as “Science” and find thousands of support articles. I won’t go into individual experiments only for the sake of arguing minute details. Somehow I trust scientists’ interpretations better than the average laymen.

Species - organisms capable of producing viable, fertile offspring.

“How is this “historical development” known? Through interviews with surviving dinosaurs and other now-extinct organisms?” - :banghead: That, or maybe gradual change that shows progressive alterations from previous species.

Scientific relevance - the fact that something occurs in nature. Whether or not evolution is true.

I answered about evolution in my previous post.

---

Just a few quick things:

-STOP using group.google, or whatever that is. I’m not going to sift through hundreds of convoluted messages in order to find what you are talking about. Those aren’t scientific reports, but little forums normally started by you.

-Organize you’re thoughts. I can’t understand most of your posts because you jump from one thing to another.

-Asking us to define our terms does little to nothing for your argument.

Please, for the sake of a good discussion.

 

[ThisOne]

David,

Reading long treatises on Google is not really suitable as a substitute for people talking on a forum like this, in my opinion.

One of the papers loaded as an unformatted text file that I could not read. I was interested in the conclusion section. I am not interested in reading the entirety of all the links you posted, but I was interested in what you had to say. However, until you decide you want to say it, I will never know.

I tend to think that posting excerpts and posting links to other material with discussing things in your own words doesn’t meet the needs of many posters, so I don’t think it’s just me.

This thread appears to have been begun by you, so I think it’s logical to ask what you are trying to say. To expect people to determine what you are trying to say by reading each link you post is unrealistic, in my opinion.

If you’d rather not say anything, there’s clearly nothing I can do but lose interest in whatever point you intended to make.

My question about your position was specifically about young earth vs. old earth.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

3 illustrations, please.

The Grants’ observation of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos.

The nylon bug.

Avida.

And as was asked before - what are you trying to say? What point do you intend to make?

 

[abcdefg]

According to Darwin, if one can eliminate a tribe, a race then the eliminated are automatically proved to be of inferior status and unworthy to live on earth.

 

[Ianjo99]

abcdefg:

According to Darwin, if one can eliminate a tribe, a race then the eliminated are automatically proved to be of inferior status and unworthy to live on earth.

ok…

and how would this disprove evolution?

 

[abcdefg]

Ianjo99:

ok…

and how would this disprove evolution?

This is a political approach. visit this thread for theology and scientific refutations

 

[Ianjo99]

abcdefg:

This is a political approach. visit this thread for theology and scientific refutations

A political approach to what?

 

[abcdefg]

Ianjo99:

A political approach to what?

Don’t pretend not understanding what I mean. you know what will happen if evolution theory is right.
Holocaust is an example. according to Hitler Jews are killed because they’re inferior. and all Hitler did is a natural competition for survival fully justifiable under ET
btw do you think Jews are losers in natural selection under Hitler’s rule?

if you have trouble understanding english, try reading vietnamese below

đừng giả cách không hiểu. Anh biết đây là tiền cảnh nếu thuyết tiến hóa là đúng. Holocaust là một thí dụ. Theo Hitler, người Do Thái bị giết vị họ là người cấp dưới. sự Hitler làm là vị giành sinh tồn. Rất dĩ nhiên theo thuyết tiến hóa.
Anh có tinh người Do Thái là người thất bại dưới thống chị Hitler khong?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Evolutionary theory is positive, not normative. It describes what happens - it does not prescribe what ought to happen.

 

[davidford]

ThisOne:

One of the papers loaded as an unformatted text file that I could not read. I was interested in the conclusion section.​

My question about your position was specifically about young earth vs. old earth.

What was the paper about?

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
The universe is about 15 billion years old.

Please ask if you have any further questions.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
go away, young-earthism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310190200530.8725-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu

 

[davidford]

EnterTheBowser:

Evolutionary theory is positive, not normative. It describes what happens - it does not prescribe what ought to happen.

Darwin is here being positive, not normative. He describes here what happens-- he does not prescribe what ought-- or ought not-- to happen:

1871 Darwin: [CD]“the civilised races of man”-- e.g. [CD]“the Caucasian”-- [CD]“will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races”-- e.g. [CD]“the negro or Australian,” as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being [CD]“man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com

 

[davidford]

EnterTheBowser:

The Grants’ observation of Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos.
The nylon bug.
Avida.

What’s Avida? Is Avida the product of mind/ intelligence?

What has been observed about “Darwin’s finches,” and what’s the significance of those observations?

What occurred with “the nylon bug,” and what’s the significance of what happened with “the nylon bug”?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1993 Stephanie Forrest on genetic algorithms
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132069993.082818.203300%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

Agree with J. Huxley’s “no”?
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405271915.6b9b6ce1%40posting.google.com

concept of “blindwatchmaking”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com

 

[davidford]

Ianjo99:

Stop asking me to define my terms, it is a weak and childish
form of argument. But, for the sake of entertaining your
ideas, here ya go:

“Is shooting…science?” - Yes, in a twisted and very
demented sense, it is science, albeit extreme and unethical
science. I don’t know what you hope to gain by our
admittance of that.

Do you consider medical personnel performing experiments to refine partial birth abortion techniques “science”?

3 stronger lines of evidence? Oh I don’t know, maybe the
hundreds of duplicated microevolutionary experiments.

What are 2 of the more-impressive of these “microevolutionary experiments”?

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
fruit fly URLs
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com

historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936 A. Franklin Shull
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com

Perhaps the pure existance of a diverse fossil record.

How is “a diverse fossil record” evidence for the theory of natural selection?

I guarentee you could look up a scienctific journal such as
“Science” and find thousands of support articles.

When was the last time you saw a copy of Science or Nature?

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Coyne: classic peppered moth story “is in bad shape, and, while not yet ready for the glue factory, needs serious attention”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402230510.519fe8a1%40posting.google.com

1992 Orr & Coyne on Fisher
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001049.19794A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1992 American Naturalist paper by Orr & Coyne
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980614220859.6338A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

Raup’s letter to Science
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990626223450.19598328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1996 Developmental Biology paper by Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980602230744.671C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

I won’t go
into individual experiments only for the sake of arguing
minute details. Somehow I trust scientists’ interpretations
better than the average laymen.

Names, please, of 4 of these “scientists.”

Species - organisms capable of producing viable, fertile
offspring.

Do you consider teacup poodles and Saint Bernards separate “species”?
They aren’t “capable of producing viable, fertile offspring.”

“How is this “historical development” known? Through
interviews with surviving dinosaurs and other now-extinct
organisms?” - :banghead: That, or maybe gradual change
that shows progressive alterations from previous species.

What’s the most-impressive instance of “gradual change that shows progressive alterations from previous species” in the fossil record that you’re aware of?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Paleobiology 3: 134 (1977) testimony by paleontologists Gould &
Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a
conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing (‘all
these years of work and I haven’t found any evolution’).

Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

1989 Christopher Wills on insignificance of known cases of gradual ‘evolution’ in fossil record
groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bhf4m%24eta%241%40nnrp1.deja.com

Scientific relevance - the fact that something occurs in
nature. Whether or not evolution is true.

Meaning of “evolution”?

I answered about evolution in my previous post.

---

Just a few quick things:

-STOP using group.google, or whatever that is.

No.

I’m not going
to sift through hundreds of convoluted messages in order to
find what you are talking about.

Then don’t. Also, you can ask me questions.

Those aren’t scientific
reports, but little forums normally started by you.

-Organize you’re thoughts. I can’t understand most of your
posts because you jump from one thing to another.

-Asking us to define our terms does little to nothing for your
argument.

Perhaps it will help your “argument.”

Please, for the sake of a good discussion.

 

[davidford]

Ianjo99:

I won’t go into individual experiments only for the sake of arguing minute details. Somehow I trust scientists’ interpretations better than the average laymen.

Do you accept any of these views?:

Sagan, Carl. 1980. Cosmos (NY: Random House), 365pp. Chapter
1’s first line:
THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE.

Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter “Epilogue and Summary” on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.

Lewontin, Richard. 9 January 1997. “Billions and Billions of Demons”
NY Times Book Reviews. At
csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/Lewontin1.htm
A paragraph:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are
against common sense is the key to an understanding of
the real struggle between science and the supernatural.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent
absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its
failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of
health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the
scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories,
because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions
of science somehow compel us to accept a material

explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the
contrary, that we are forced by our _a priori_ adherence
to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation
and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,
no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that
materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine
Foot in the door.  The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck
used to say that anyone who could believe in God could
believe in anything.  To appeal to an omnipotent deity is
to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature
may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

 

[Ianjo99]

You know you’re right, that might help my argument (as you have yet to make one), here are some questions then:

1. What is the point you are trying to make with this topic?
2. Do you believe that connecting a infamous people or person with evolution proves it to be false or helps prove it to be false? If so, why?
3. Do you think that philosophy/theology has absolutely any say in whether or not the theory of evolution is sound? If so, how?
4. What are your three best arguments against evolution or pro-creationism (NOT “because the bible says so”).
5. I’m just curious (honestly, this isn’t meant to call you out or anything, I just want to know) what level of biology have you formally studied? Or, have you majored in biology, gotten a degree in a similar science, or what?
6. Why do you put SO many links to google.groups then? What is the purpose of them, or how do they help prove your point?