Comrade Darwin

[WinterBorn]

Most scientific theories have spots you can pick out and exploit.

The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth.

Is it perfect? Not even close. But then, since we are dealing with events that happened millions of years ago, it is hard to experiment.

If you would like to suggest a better scientific answer, please feel free.

"The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth."



Well, it certainly is elegant.
Unfortunately it lends itself to a destructive worldview, as one can see in the OP.


I like your statement....but to be correct, you'd best replace 'scientific' with 'philosophical.'



Then, we'd agree.

No, I understand the scientific nature of the theory of evolution. I also understand that the fossil record is not a history book, and does not contain examples of every species that has ever existed.

If you wish to disregard the entire theory because there is no clear fossil record of one species mutating into another (and that is almost impossible to have in the fossil record), then so be it. The genetic research done shows clear links between species.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have no problem with the "Theory of Evolution" being taught in schools as a theory.

But not as a scientific fact. .

In science classes it is taught as the Theory of Evolution. The problem is that you do not understand the scientific definition oft he word "Theory". It is not just a guess or a hunch.

Theories in science may also be disproven. When that happens it ceases to become a theory. It also may be altered as new information is made available.

I have never heard a biology teacher call it a "fact".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most scientific theories have spots you can pick out and exploit.

The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth.

Is it perfect? Not even close. But then, since we are dealing with events that happened millions of years ago, it is hard to experiment.

If you would like to suggest a better scientific answer, please feel free.

"The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth."



Well, it certainly is elegant.
Unfortunately it lends itself to a destructive worldview, as one can see in the OP.


I like your statement....but to be correct, you'd best replace 'scientific' with 'philosophical.'



Then, we'd agree.

No, I understand the scientific nature of the theory of evolution. I also understand that the fossil record is not a history book, and does not contain examples of every species that has ever existed.

If you wish to disregard the entire theory because there is no clear fossil record of one species mutating into another (and that is almost impossible to have in the fossil record), then so be it. The genetic research done shows clear links between species.

" I understand the scientific nature of the theory of evolution. I also understand that the fossil record....

Contrary to your claim....you do not understand either evolution nor science.


If you pay careful attention to the thread today...you may learn where you went wrong.

 

[WinterBorn]

"The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth."



Well, it certainly is elegant.
Unfortunately it lends itself to a destructive worldview, as one can see in the OP.


I like your statement....but to be correct, you'd best replace 'scientific' with 'philosophical.'



Then, we'd agree.

No, I understand the scientific nature of the theory of evolution. I also understand that the fossil record is not a history book, and does not contain examples of every species that has ever existed.

If you wish to disregard the entire theory because there is no clear fossil record of one species mutating into another (and that is almost impossible to have in the fossil record), then so be it. The genetic research done shows clear links between species.

" I understand the scientific nature of the theory of evolution. I also understand that the fossil record....

Contrary to your claim....you do not understand either evolution nor science.


If you pay careful attention to the thread today...you may learn where you went wrong.

I have paid attention to an attempt at a link between the theory of evolution and being a Marxist. I find that laughable. What the two have in common is that neither follows the bible as a history book. Other than that there is nothing. Many Christians see evolution as a scientific explanation of God's work. Only those Christians who demandtha the bible is exactly historically accurate have a problem with it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, I understand the scientific nature of the theory of evolution. I also understand that the fossil record is not a history book, and does not contain examples of every species that has ever existed.

If you wish to disregard the entire theory because there is no clear fossil record of one species mutating into another (and that is almost impossible to have in the fossil record), then so be it. The genetic research done shows clear links between species.

" I understand the scientific nature of the theory of evolution. I also understand that the fossil record....

Contrary to your claim....you do not understand either evolution nor science.


If you pay careful attention to the thread today...you may learn where you went wrong.

I have paid attention to an attempt at a link between the theory of evolution and being a Marxist. I find that laughable. What the two have in common is that neither follows the bible as a history book. Other than that there is nothing. Many Christians see evolution as a scientific explanation of God's work. Only those Christians who demandtha the bible is exactly historically accurate have a problem with it.

I will suggest that an astute individual will not find the precis 'laughable' at it's conclusion.


We'll see....won't we.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nihilism and communism go together....as do morality and religion.

A major difference is that the former are applied to governing, while, in a democracy, the latter are not.
History provides dispositive evidence of the results: gulags, genocidal famines, massacres, and oppression.
Yet....far too many continue to deny the facts.



Once again...it is pretense of Darwin's unproven theory that provides a putative foundation for the misguided view.




The novelist Aldous Huxley, in his treatise, Ends and Means, says the following:

"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." Evolutionary theory provided the metaphysical framework for meaninglessness.

The denial of God serves as a psychological crutch for someone who needs to hope that there is no accountability for his failure to believe, or for deficiencies in his self-concocted moral system. For as the Russian author Dostoevsky once claimed, if there is no God, all acts are equivalent. Evolutionary theory attempts to add the patina of credibility to the atheistic position."
Were We Fooled by Stephen J. Gould?


I believe Huxley said it pretty well, explaining the attraction of nihilism/communism.....and tied it neatly to 'evolutionary theory.'

 

[mamooth]

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

I would hope not, since animals don't transmute. There's no transmogrifier for animals out there.

Populations, however, do evolve, and speciation has been observed over and over. Dozens of such cases are listed here:

Observed Instances of Speciation

 

[mamooth]

The Nazis found some tenets of Christianity useful, hence Christianity is just like Nazism.

That would be PC's logic here. Hence why everyone instantly dismisses it as being totally retarded.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

I would hope not, since animals don't transmute. There's no transmogrifier for animals out there.

Populations, however, do evolve, and speciation has been observed over and over. Dozens of such cases are listed here:

Observed Instances of Speciation

The example you provide is exactly the bogus double talk that convince the uninformed....

....that would be you.

In this case, there is no disrespect involved....simply that you are uninformed, and therefore easily convinced.



From your link:

"A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community."

This alone should warn you that the rest will be double talk.


Then, there's this:
"What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts."


Do you have a definition of 'species'?


This is it:
spe·cies
ˈspēsēz,-SHēz/Submit
noun
1.
BIOLOGY
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.



Science is based on evidence, not polls.

"...the literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred."

Do you know what 'inferred' means?


And, the uninformed accept things like this:
"Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs."

If you accept this as science, you probably accept 'global warming,' too.



Again....no speciation has been been observed.


"NOT ONE of the examples studied documents the origin of large-scale biological change. The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a "species" is defined by the standard definition of a "reproductively isolated population."
Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals -- e.g. the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population -- was found. - Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Evolution News & Views




You should reconsider the thesis of the OP.
At least it is based on the truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Nazis found some tenets of Christianity useful, hence Christianity is just like Nazism.

That would be PC's logic here. Hence why everyone instantly dismisses it as being totally retarded.

Why bring up Nazis when the connection is quite clear that Darwin's theory is firmly connected to communism?
Obfuscation?




Case in point:

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment:

“‘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.”

Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote


What a coincidence.....exactly what I've said!



So....the theory is less about science and more about attacking the enemy of communism....religion.
And from a Marxist no less!

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems we haven't addressed the reason why so very many government school grads are wedded to Darwinian evolutionary theory.....

....perhaps this will give some explanation:


John Dewey, communist, who is largely responsible for the 'education' in our schools.

" He [Dewey] wrote of how impressed he was with the restoration of Russian churches…all the while, under Lenin and Stalin, the demolition of churches was going on! Before the revolution there were 657 churches in Moscow, but some 46 by the ‘70’s."
Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century"


A communist as head educrat....and the schools advance secularism....

...who could have guessed?

 

[WinterBorn]

I have no problem with the "Theory of Evolution" being taught in schools as a theory.

But not as a scientific fact. .

It's as much of a fact as the Gravational Theory, or Cell Theory, or Atomic Theory. Evolutionary Theory explains all those biological facts. A scientific theory is the framework facts hang on.

Incorrect.

Gravitational Theory, or Cell Theory, or Atomic Theory, can be demonstrated in the laboratory and replicated.

But the Theory of Evolution has never been demonstrated or replicated and is still just an unproven theory. .

The theory of Evolution deals with things that happened millions of years ago and happened over the course of extremely long periods of time. You cannot recreate that in a lab.

But tell us, Sunni Man, what do you think should be taught in biology class concerning the huge variety of species on earth?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's as much of a fact as the Gravational Theory, or Cell Theory, or Atomic Theory. Evolutionary Theory explains all those biological facts. A scientific theory is the framework facts hang on.

Incorrect.

Gravitational Theory, or Cell Theory, or Atomic Theory, can be demonstrated in the laboratory and replicated.

But the Theory of Evolution has never been demonstrated or replicated and is still just an unproven theory. .

The theory of Evolution deals with things that happened millions of years ago and happened over the course of extremely long periods of time. You cannot recreate that in a lab.

But tell us, Sunni Man, what do you think should be taught in biology class concerning the huge variety of species on earth?

"The theory of Evolution deals with things that happened millions of years ago and happened over the course of extremely long periods of time. You cannot recreate that in a lab."


You haven't studied the subject beyond what your high school teacher said....have you?


Darwin wrote in his Origin,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth.



Darwin wrote immediately afterward:

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164



Do you understand?

Fossils have been found in every strata....
...in fact, they were the basis for guessing the age of strata, early on.



But Darwin recognized that the Cambrian explosion contained species for which there were no precursors!
Not gradually, based on accumulated mutations....but suddenly!




Jump to modern times.....still no explanation for the sudden appearance of new organisms with new body types.....

So Stephen Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, admits that Darwin must be incorrect:

Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"



And you say.....what?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems none want to dispute the connections between Marxism, Darwinism, secularism, atheism......

I guess these questions never occurred to acolytes as they were instructed (indoctrinated?) in school.....

 

[Sunshine]

Most scientific theories have spots you can pick out and exploit.

The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth.

Is it perfect? Not even close. But then, since we are dealing with events that happened millions of years ago, it is hard to experiment.

If you would like to suggest a better scientific answer, please feel free.

"The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth."



Well, it certainly is elegant.
Unfortunately it lends itself to a destructive worldview, as one can see in the OP.


I like your statement....but to be correct, you'd best replace 'scientific' with 'philosophical.'



Then, we'd agree.

According to the science of genetics offspring tend toward the average. Another way of saying that is 'regression toward the mean.' Darwin's theory refutes regression toward the mean, a scientific fact which was known when he was just a twinkle in his mother's eye.

Human Genetics - Multifactorial Inheritance

Life forms do not evolve upward. They evolve toward the mean. Fact.

 

[WinterBorn]

Incorrect.

Gravitational Theory, or Cell Theory, or Atomic Theory, can be demonstrated in the laboratory and replicated.

But the Theory of Evolution has never been demonstrated or replicated and is still just an unproven theory. .

It's been observed both in the lab and in the wild. We're not even talking about the fossil record, but in actual living, breathing, reproducing populations.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

And what would the transmutation of one species to another look like to an observer in the field? A species they had not observed? And how would it look in the fossil record? A species that is very, very similar to another species, except for one (or maybe two) significant differences? How would the link be shown in the wild or in the fossil record, without observing the birth?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most scientific theories have spots you can pick out and exploit.

The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth.

Is it perfect? Not even close. But then, since we are dealing with events that happened millions of years ago, it is hard to experiment.

If you would like to suggest a better scientific answer, please feel free.

"The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth."



Well, it certainly is elegant.
Unfortunately it lends itself to a destructive worldview, as one can see in the OP.


I like your statement....but to be correct, you'd best replace 'scientific' with 'philosophical.'



Then, we'd agree.

According to the science of genetics offspring tend toward the average. Another way of saying that is 'regression toward the mean.' Darwin's theory refutes regression toward the mean, a scientific fact which was known when he was just a twinkle in his mother's eye.

Human Genetics - Multifactorial Inheritance

Life forms do not evolve upward. They evolve toward the mean. Fact.

Which leads back to the basis of the OP.....why the unalloyed faith so many have in Darwin?


And my answer is that it is a political movement based on materialism, one which has led to more devastation than any other in the history of the world.

 

[WinterBorn]

Incorrect.

Gravitational Theory, or Cell Theory, or Atomic Theory, can be demonstrated in the laboratory and replicated.

But the Theory of Evolution has never been demonstrated or replicated and is still just an unproven theory. .

The theory of Evolution deals with things that happened millions of years ago and happened over the course of extremely long periods of time. You cannot recreate that in a lab.

But tell us, Sunni Man, what do you think should be taught in biology class concerning the huge variety of species on earth?

"The theory of Evolution deals with things that happened millions of years ago and happened over the course of extremely long periods of time. You cannot recreate that in a lab."


You haven't studied the subject beyond what your high school teacher said....have you?


Darwin wrote in his Origin,

"Consequently if this theory be true (evolution) it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures."

Darwin stated here that if his theory were true there should have been multiplied billions of living creatures evolving who lived then for millions of years before the Cambrian era on the earth.



Darwin wrote immediately afterward:

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164



Do you understand?

Fossils have been found in every strata....
...in fact, they were the basis for guessing the age of strata, early on.



But Darwin recognized that the Cambrian explosion contained species for which there were no precursors!
Not gradually, based on accumulated mutations....but suddenly!




Jump to modern times.....still no explanation for the sudden appearance of new organisms with new body types.....

So Stephen Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, admits that Darwin must be incorrect:

Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"



And you say.....what?

I say that relying on fossils to document every living creature is to show you do not understand how random and rare fossilization is. And in more primitive species, namely single-cell organisms or softer bodied creatures, the chances of fossilization becomes ever less.

 

[Sunni Man]

Seems none want to dispute the connections between Marxism, Darwinism, secularism, atheism......

I guess these questions never occurred to acolytes as they were instructed (indoctrinated?) in school.....

One of Marx's goals was to eradicate society of religion as it transitioned into communism.

Darwin's budding theory of evolution seemed to be the perfect choice to replace religion in the new 'Workers Paradise'. .

 

[WinterBorn]

"The Theory of Evolution is, by far, the best scientific answer to the questions involving speciation and the huge variety of species on earth."



Well, it certainly is elegant.
Unfortunately it lends itself to a destructive worldview, as one can see in the OP.


I like your statement....but to be correct, you'd best replace 'scientific' with 'philosophical.'



Then, we'd agree.

According to the science of genetics offspring tend toward the average. Another way of saying that is 'regression toward the mean.' Darwin's theory refutes regression toward the mean, a scientific fact which was known when he was just a twinkle in his mother's eye.

Human Genetics - Multifactorial Inheritance

Life forms do not evolve upward. They evolve toward the mean. Fact.

Which leads back to the basis of the OP.....why the unalloyed faith so many have in Darwin?


And my answer is that it is a political movement based on materialism, one which has led to more devastation than any other in the history of the world.

Your confusion between science and politics is laughable. Which is why so little discussion has been afforded that portion of your topic.

To claim that Darwin's theories in biology are closely related to communism, Marxism, or secularism is not even close to accurate.

Now, I understand why you wish to condemn them all. You insist that religious belief is the only source of morality. Having known many very moral atheists, and many immoral religious people, the answer is obviously not what you think.

And too many who accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation, have gone on to become very successful capitalists. They would no more ascribe to Marx's teachings than they would to the Flat-Earthers.