February 2, 1809. Both Lincoln and Darwin were born. Who was the greater emancipator?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ethereal @ Jul 23 2007, 08:38 PM) [snapback]483873[/snapback]</div>

As has been pointed out this is not true. Darwinism does not result in predictions of what will be the fittest. It is an explanation of how species evolved by natural selection.

Breeding is what animal handlers and owners have done for thousands of years and has nothing to do with understanding evolution through natural selection.

 

" I sustain that Darwin's theories "emancipated" hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives from this earth via a particularly grisly but thoroughly legitimate application."

So are you taking the position that none of the Nazi atrocities would have happened if Darwin had not published his findings?

BTW, I don't think Darwin "emancipated" anything either, as I pointed out way back in page 1 of this. The holocaust would have happened regardless of Darwin's theories.


"Sterilising or exterminating the "undesirable" is a necessary application of Darwinism if mankind is not to "progress" back to his less civilised state."

"As has been pointed out this is not true. Darwinism does not result in predictions of what will be the fittest. It is an explanation of how species evolved by natural selection."

Well said, I was going to write the same thing. It's called "devolution" and it does not exist. If the entire animal kingdom somehow reverted to older forms (which is not possible), that would be "continued evolution" to adapt to the environment , not a "step back".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 24 2007, 10:38 AM) [snapback]484118[/snapback]</div>

OK, I'm going to try starting from scratch. Please look back at my example of the descriptive science of natural hemodynamics, and the applied science of "unnatural hemodynamics." From a materialist perspective, natural hemodynamics has no purpose, either; it just happens to (usually) maintain the supply of oxygen and nutrients to the tissues of the body. However, unnatural hemodynamics has the deliberate, human-supplied objective of keeping a patient alive despite insults that would otherwise kill him. This human-supplied purpose is the conditio sine qua non of applied science. Absent a human-supplied purpose, what is the science being applied to?

Now, societies have, throughout time, decided it desireable to cultivate certain qualities among their members while discouraging others. The present-day US appears to have decided that it's preferable its citizens be, say, educated and fit, so we have merit-based scholarships and the President's Physical Fitness Award.

Were Lamarckism generally held to be true, could we not apply its principles to cultivating heritable qualities amongst our citizens? If we wanted the next generation to be taller, building codes could specify higher light switches and shelves so we'd be forever stretching to reach them, gaining height and passing it on to our children. Elevators could be reserved only for freight or infirm passengers, and the rest of us, forced to take the stairs, could pass our highly developed leg muscles on to the next generation.

National Socialism, however, held not Lamarckism, but Darwinism, to be true. Therefore, given the human-supplied purpose that they desired the German people to be, generation after generation, stronger, healthier, and smarter, they applied Darwinism to this purpose by sterilising or eliminating the weak, sickly, and slow-witted. The fact that Darwin's descriptive science of evolution lacks purpose makes it in no way unique amongst the pure sciences. Like any other application of science, the National Socialists adapted an elucidated mechanism to achieve a desired end.

I am most curious to know how you hypothesize the Holocaust (and Aktion T4 before it) would have occurred absent a Darwinist basis...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ethereal @ Jul 28 2007, 05:03 PM) [snapback]486803[/snapback]</div>

This is the part you keep getting wrong. Eugenics is about breeding. "Darwinism" is the theory that explains biological complexity.

The only meaning I know of the phrase applied darwinism is when you want to reconstruct how a trait evolved by means of genetics and natural selection. Like changes in BMP levels in galapagos finches correlating with beak size and precipitation.

If you go out in the field and select for finches with long beaks you have become a breeder not a "Darwinist".

In the end I don't know what you are arguing about. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that "darwinism" has resulted in unspeakable evil. That has no bearing about whether the theory is correct or not.

 

This is exactly true. It doesn't really matter whether or not the Nazi's used Darwin's theories - either the theory is correct or incorrect.

The theory of gravity has no real political agenda. It just is. Things fall to the ground unless there is something to overcome it. If I throw a bunch of people out the window of a high rise building, it doesn't make the theory of gravity any more or less valid.

Same thing with atomic theory. Does the fact that the US made atomic weapons that killed many, many people mean that atomic theory is incorrect?

Unfortunately, science sometimes gets mixed up with politics. The facts of the natural world are always going to be true, no matter what you personally think of them. I think it really sucks that babies under the age of 24 weeks generally don't survive when born that early. Someone else may take that same fact and decide that it supports their views for or against abortion. But it doesn't really matter how they or I feel about it - it's just the way that things ARE.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 23 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]483675[/snapback]</div>

Previously I had asked you to define what "evolution" meant. You response was basically "gene change" or a change in the "gene pool from generation to generation†roughly the same I think. But what I am trying to point out is the fact that simply defining "evolution" as gene change or alteration is consistent with what the creationist call micro-evolution or adaptation, a concept which creationists have no problem with accepting.

What creationist do have a problem with is the theory that this type of simple “gene change†can account for the many different types of species found on earth today irregardless of the amount of time that has passed. Your use of the Peppered Moth is a prime example; this adaptation (light to dark colored moths due to pollution) introduces no new information gene’s/DNA with which speciation (change in species) can take place. What is happening in the Peppered Moth is dormant gene becoming dominate. Why this is happening is still a mystery because ten’s of thousands of scientific surveys/observations done by evolutionary scientists have pretty much proven that Peppered Moths don’t land in or on trees!

Your premise that simple gene change accounts for speciation without further evidence that addition information has been added into the gene/DNA structure of the Peppered Moth or other organism has not been proven. In the end what you have is a Peppered Moth and nothing more than a Peppered Moth, setting aside the entire controversy about this highly contentious example.

BTW, the study of biology and the whole gamut of science were initiated by the church opening institutes of higher education just to study the creation of God.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 30 2007, 01:05 AM) [snapback]487330[/snapback]</div>

Not "irregardless of the amount of time". Genomes change like clockwork at an average pre-determined rate. If you take two species and determine how different their genomes are you can tell how long ago their shared ancestor lived.

For example between humans and chimpanzees the differences is less than 2% and our common ancestor lived less than 20 million years ago. Our differences with mice I think its about 20% meaning our common ancestor libed about 200 million years ago and so on.

If a creationist has a problem with this they can just try to publish their alternate view in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jul 30 2007, 06:29 AM) [snapback]487385[/snapback]</div>

Could you cite some sources for this theory?
The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced. Where did the high percentage similarity" come from then? It was inferred by Sibley and Ahlquist, in 1987 from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. The original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interpretation of the data 'on faith'. It still amazes me the amounts of ‘blind faith’ evolutionist possess! This data was later obtained and due to some statistical errors the actual percentage similarity, even if all other factors were above criticism would be closer to 96%. Other scientists believe this percentage could be even higher perhaps 98%+.
What if human and chimp DNA was even 96-98% similar? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? I don’t think so! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 2-4% different this still amounts to 60-120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 6-12 million words, or 20-40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross regardless of the amount of time that has passed.


Wildkow

 

You will not believe any sources that someone might cite here. Take responsibility for reducing your own ignorance: take a couple of college level biology courses. Gain an accurate understanding of the real theory of evolution (not the Chick Comics/ICR/intelligent design parody versions) and of the evidence that persuades us that the theory is correct.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Jul 30 2007, 08:08 AM) [snapback]487427[/snapback]</div>

It's kind of hard to gain an accurate understanding of something when the target is continually on the move!

Wildkow

p.s. BTW very few if any biology college courses teach evolution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 30 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]487433[/snapback]</div>

Right. Only in good colleges. Its impossible to teach biology without teaching evolution.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 30 2007, 09:35 AM) [snapback]487418[/snapback]</div>

Nope. Its called "climbing mount improbable" one step at a time. Completely possible when you consider the timeframes we are discussing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jul 30 2007, 08:31 AM) [snapback]487436[/snapback]</div>

Which "good college" did you goto and what year?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 30 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]487448[/snapback]</div>

Not that it matters but:

University of Puerto Rico for undergrad
University of Wisconsin - Madison for Graduate School and Veterinary Medicine
University of Florida - Gainesville for Pathology residence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ethereal @ Jul 28 2007, 06:03 PM) [snapback]486803[/snapback]</div>

I'll bite...
A government wishes to regain lost territory and avenge past slights. To do so they need to build their war machine. This takes resources. So those that take resources while not adding to the government's effort are eliminated(Aktion T4).
In order to stir up the populace, to help in seizing power, a group is selected to play the scapegoat. When this group has served their purpose, and can no longer serve as slave labor, they kill them too.

 

Genocides don't need Darwin to happen.

Serbs vs. Croats vs. Bosnians - it never had a thing to do with Darwin, only with religious and historical hatreds.

Saddam vs. the Kurds - again, nothing to do with Darwin.

Turks vs. Armenians - nope, no Darwin here.

Hutu vs. Tutsi - have they even READ Darwin in Rwanda? I doubt that the average village thug is considering evolution as he whacks the heads off the opposition.

Darwin is no excuse for genocide, nor is genocide the logical outcome of Darwin's theory. People who have a limited understanding of "survival of the fittest" use the theory for their own evil purposes, not because Darwin's theory dictates that genocide is desirable or inevitable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Jul 30 2007, 09:08 AM) [snapback]487455[/snapback]</div>

Would you agree that those are good schools? Did they teach evolution? Did you keep the text books you study from and do you recall if they had much about evolution in them?

Here's some examples from this site . . . .


[attachmentid=10289]


It seems to me that if evolution was so important to Biology and the sciences they would actually cover it a little more in their textbooks don't you think?

Wildkow

 

LINCOLN'S BIRTHDAY WAS ON THE 12TH!
end of discussion.





i know because it's my birthday too.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 30 2007, 11:34 PM) [snapback]487832[/snapback]</div>

Exactly right. Nothing makes sense in biology without evolution. For example in molecular biology we talk about the evolutionary relationship of kinases or membrane channels. What is the relationship between orthologs or homologs, etc. It was a daily discussion for me.

When you don't see it mentioned in textbooks its because its because its so fundamental its not necessary to constantly bring it up. It would be like driving your car and saying aloud all the movements and decisions you make for the benefit of the passengers. It would of course not be discussed in chemistry or geology as evolution in this context is is a biological process. It needs genetics.

 

Exactly right.

No respected biology department holds intelligent design or creationism as valid biological theory. They will carefully mention it as a view some might take and leave it at that. As you take higher level courses, the concepts of evolution are a given.

And I attended a CATHOLIC university. Then again, my great uncle is an 85 year old priest (actually a monsignior), who ALSO does not discount the theory of evolution, so I guess it's not overly ironic that my Catholic University taught classes with evolution as an assumed concept.

 

Why would I go to a chemistry book to learn about evolution?