Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
3,135
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 67:
Line 67: − + Line 74:
Line 74: − + − ''"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)+ − ''"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." ''(page 832)+ Line 205:
Line 205: − − − == Evolution Is Not Fundamentally Violent; Christianity Is == − − I would like to point out an incontrivertible fact: − − Adolf Hitler regularly made appeals to God in Mein Kampf, calling upon Him to support his 'struggle' to 'rid the world of Jews'. I have read Mein Kampf, and studied Hitler's life, and have noted that Hitler's Christianity cannot be denied. He was an avid believer. However, I admit that many of his claims distorted fundamental Biblical teachings, though not by a wide margin, and his interpretation of the Bible was often based on desire, as opposed to reality. A caveat to this however was that much of what he wrote of, drawn from the Bible, in order to support his beliefs, was not distorted, and was impirically anti-semetic also. − − As [[Christopher Hitchens]] points out in his book: [[god Is Not Great]], Mein Kampf was published at a time when the Catholic church was banning books at will, if they even slightly opposed orthodox Christian theological teachings, as presented by Roman Catholicism. − Therefore, given the fact that the Pope (who definitely was aware of, and did read) Mein Kampf, chose '''NOT''' to ban it, I would suggest that this implies - or, indeed, insists - that the book was met with approval by the Papacy. − As I have noted, Hitler called upon God - a Christian God - to support him in his efforts (what is written in Mein Kampf certainly does not suggest a holocaust is inconceivable to Hitler) and therefore, one would assume that if the Pope read it, he would be thoroughly incensed by it. Because the Pope read it, and didn't take action (any at all!) what are we to think but that he supported Adolf's desire to rid the world of so called 'Christ-killers'? (I personally would call God responsible for the death of Jesus Christ - if He exists, and there is no reason to assume He does.) − − As for the matter of Hitler being an evolutionist, he certainly was aware of the theory, and adhered to it somewhat, but, just as I have said he did of Christian theology and doctrine, (which, if taken fundamentally - the only logicial way to do so - would itself demand the essential murder of millions of women by banning contraceptives and causing AIDS to flourish in Africa) he also warped the theories of Charles Darwin to conform to his own murderous desires. What Hitler wrote of was a 'will of nature', and that is something which implies that nature can make conscious decisions, while humanity is incapable of choosing what to do and what not to do for itself. This is not a fundamental Darwinist theory. Darwinism explains the facts about our origins. It does not limit, through this, our potential to go beyond them. Such people as Hitler, and the religious apologists on this site, as well as the person above me, who, in a desperate attempt to seem neutral, has blindfolded his or herself to numerous facts, vindicate more than anything else, Darwin's claim that: − − "Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible scar of his lowly origin." − − − Line 260:
Line 242: − − Yes, I have. Really, I am addressing the article in this answer, and my whole view on the subject could change if any actual evidence was placed before me which it is not even in Fodor's book. That article demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of evolutionary biology and genetics. If it were describing environmental effects on genetic hereditry, with the outcome being beneficial for the offspring, such as in Lamarck's positation that giraffes have long necks because their parents and grandparents (etc) were constantly endeavouring to reach for food, then yes, the arguement against Darwinian theory would exist. But that is not what the report contains. The article lists three exemplary studies - and, given the relish with which the journalist puts them forward, it would make sense to assume they are the only studies supporting this claim (for surely such an anti-Darwinist would not neglect a supplementary affront to Darwinism). Therefore, it is evident that the sole evidence against the scientifically held theory of evolution is easily dismissable. The reason is because the two cases, that of chickens and their offspring, men and their grandchildren, (while for now excluding mice and their young), detail negative circumstances which organisms had to endure, and, in mice in their young, an abstract positive chance. The fact that there were then subsequent abnormalities in the chickens' children, or mens' grandchildren, or positive ones in a small number of mice, does not demonstrate that evolution is influenced by inherited characteristics based on environmentally-influenced actions, but re-iterates something already known by scientists like Dawkins and Dennett: that, in the case of the first two, an organism which undergoes stress and/or negative circumstances, will not transmit the traits to subsequent generations by means that differ from Darwin's articulated mechanism, but that chemical imbalances will distort the sensitive physical and genetic structure of genes, impairing their ability to assimilate and propigate instructional codes in the new organism they are now building. That is, a chicken that is subjected to stress (by the way, what a cruel experiment!) will undergo chemical imbalances which will have a direct influence on their ability to produce sex cells, and the same is true of the grandfathers. The only difference in their case is that what has been affected is simply a section of DNA that often skips a generation. As for the mice, even though the article gives no references, and I have read the book from which it draws its information, that can be placed under the heading of chance. What the article fails to realise, moreover, is that evolution and/or natural selection does not rely on randomness, but that it is a structured process, guided by rules and, by the nature of the unconscious force at work, codes of conduct. Furthermore, there is no evidence of horizontal transfer included. To speak of rape, moreover, as natural, neglects the fact that humans can chose whether or not to do what they want, though they admittedly cannot chose what to want. And as for the purpotedly 'insightful' and 'shocking' claim that rape is natural, isn't everything natural, being that it exists? How is a beaver dam more natural than a skyscraper, or a volcano more natural than a living room sofa? Of course rape is natural, because people do it! Then we come to the ridiculous point: "Survival of the fittest. Who are the fittest? The ones who survive!" This fails to realise that the fittest are the ones most suited to surviving. We can observe, prior to an organism dying, and another surviving, which is most suited to its environment, and accurately predict which one will survive! Therefore, it is not correct to say that survival of the fittest is a redundant term, but that it is an apt one. Ann Coulter's point that: "The 'survival of the fittest' would be a joke if it weren't part of the belief system of a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community" is therefore nullifed. Although, like everything she says, it ridicules itself. The following paragraph is arguably the most stupid in the history of literature: "Fodor notes – undeniably correctly – that not every trait a creature possesses is necessarily adaptive. Some just come along for the ride: for example, genes that express as tameness in domesticated foxes and dogs also seem to express as floppy ears, for no evident reason. Other traits are, as logicians say, "coextensive": a polar bear, for example, has the trait of "whiteness" and also the trait of "being the same colour as its environment". (Yes, that's a brain-stretching, possibly insanity-inducing statement. Take a deep breath.) Step two: natural selection, according to its theorists, is a force that "selects for" certain traits. (Floppy ears appear to serve no purpose, so while they may have been "selected", as a matter of fact, they weren't "selected for". And polar bears, we'd surely all agree, were "selected for" being the same colour as their environment, not for being white per se: being white is no use as camouflage if snow is, say, orange.)" . . . Now, polar bears' whiteness is not 'selected for' and that is the answer, because snow is not and never has been orange. As for the dog's ears, is he really saying that just because we don't know something now, we won't in future!? Daniel Dennett, astute as ever, summarises Fodor's book immaculately, and so I need only refer you to his comments on it, which are in the article. As for the last paragraph of the article, which is: "The irony in all this is that Darwin himself never claimed that it [natural selection] was [the only force at work in evolution]. He went to his deathbed protesting that he'd been misinterpreted: there was no reason, he said, to assume that natural selection was the only imaginable mechanism of evolution. Darwin, writing before the discovery of DNA, knew very well that his work heralded the beginning of a journey to understand the origins and development of life. All we may be discovering now is that we remain closer to the beginning of that journey than we've come to think." First of all, Darwin said what he said because he was under a huge amount of pressure from his friends, his wife, and a religious society, and his words were an act of false contrition to their deistic delusions. As for the discovery of DNA, it has not proved Darwin wrong. Instead, it has proved him right. It has just allowed us to narrow down the scale at which natural selection can be considered to work. And this fact is clearly visible in Richard Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene'. −
Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 23 (view source)
Revision as of 22:48, September 12, 2012
, 22:48, September 12, 2012rv to archived version; comments about archived discussions can be raised (possibly with a link to the old topic) on the main discussion page
"Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors which is an idea rejected by the current scientific community."
"Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a naturalist who supported the theory of evolution. Lamarck's theory of evolution asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors which is an idea rejected by the current scientific community."
The comment is deliberately misleading. As also stated in [[Lamarck]]'s article (on this site), Lamarck proposed that animals acquire such traits through use over generations/lifetimes. The following is a bit more thorough: ''"Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned"'' ([http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html]).
The comment is deliberately misleading. As also stated in [[Lamarck]]'s article (on this site), Lamarck proposed that animals acquire such traits through use over generations/lifetimes. The following is a bit more thorough: "Lamarckian inheritance, at least in the sense Lamarck intended, is in conflict with the findings of genetics and has now been largely abandoned" ([http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html]).
NOTE: The misinformation in the article was posited due to a sentence taken out of place from the source cited in the article: [http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567]
NOTE: The misinformation in the article was posited due to a sentence taken out of place from the source cited in the article: [http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13567]
::::Perhaps, you should also claim that the Conservapedia Pi article is misleading because it doesn't go far enough out to the right of the decimal point as far you wish concerning the value of [[Pi]]. In short, there is a difference between precision and being misleading. When you are done trying to create a tempest in a teapot, let me know. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:20, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
::::Perhaps, you should also claim that the Conservapedia Pi article is misleading because it doesn't go far enough out to the right of the decimal point as far you wish concerning the value of [[Pi]]. In short, there is a difference between precision and being misleading. When you are done trying to create a tempest in a teapot, let me know. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:20, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
Another misleading aspect of the evolution page is quote mining. The Mark Ridley quote should include the beginning and the end of the quote.'' "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."'' It could also include, '' "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." ''(page 830)
Another misleading aspect of the evolution page is quote mining. The Mark Ridley quote should include the beginning and the end of the quote. "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." It could also include, "Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)
"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)
"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html
I believe in honest debate. And to me, it’s dishonest to say that Hitler was an Evolutionist. He was no more and Evolutionist, than he was a Christian.
I believe in honest debate. And to me, it’s dishonest to say that Hitler was an Evolutionist. He was no more and Evolutionist, than he was a Christian.
- Lex [[User:LRose|LRose]] 21:56, 10 December 2009 (EST)
- Lex [[User:LRose|LRose]] 21:56, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Has anyone followed what is going on within the evolutionary community regarding this material: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong Why Everything You Have Been Told About Evolution is Wrong][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:34, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
Has anyone followed what is going on within the evolutionary community regarding this material: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong Why Everything You Have Been Told About Evolution is Wrong][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:34, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
== Terribly biased? ==
== Terribly biased? ==