Comrade Darwin

[Sunshine]

"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.

A review of the writings of the founders of communism shows that the theory of evolution, especially as taught by Darwin, was critically important in the development of modern communism. Many of the central architects of communism, including Stalin, Lenin, Marx and Engels, accepted the worldview portrayed in the book of Genesis until they were introduced to Darwin and other contemporary thinkers, which ultimately resulted in their abandoning that worldview. Furthermore, Darwinism was critically important in their conversion to communism and to a worldview that led them to a philosophy based on atheism. In addition, the communist core idea that violent revolution, in which the strong overthrow the weak, was a natural, inevitable part of the unfolding of history from Darwinistic concepts and conclusions.

The Darwinian Foundation of Communism - Answers in Genesis

Religion has always held some competition for the hearts and minds of the people. With religion out of the picture the government held all the cards.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

I see Sunni Man does not want to answer this question. Anyone else?

 

[Sunni Man]

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.

I don't remember anyone talking about 'morality'?

Now you are just grasping at straws........

 

[Sunshine]

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?

I see Sunni Man does not want to answer this question. Anyone else?

When I was in college, they taught natural selection, but they could never carry the concept beyond a white moth turning black because the white ones got eaten off by the birds if they sat on a black tree trunk. They were never able to generalize natural selection to speciation, though try they did. Evolution simply doesn't make sense. And it defies already proven genetic concepts such as regression toward the mean.

That is not to say that the only other theory is the genesis story, but there are scientists who now say that human evolution into sentience would have happened far more rapidly than evolution would allow. And no creature in a transitional stage has ever been unearthed.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

I don't remember anyone talking about 'morality'?

Now you are just grasping at straws........

In post #26 of this thread, PoliticalChick stated "Nihilism and communism go together....as do morality and religion." as part of her argument.

I addressed that.



But speaking of grasping, why not try grasping the simple question I asked you? Perhaps you could answer it?

 

[Sunni Man]

But speaking of grasping, why not try grasping the simple question I asked you? Perhaps you could answer it?

I am fine with TOE, ID, creationism, natural selection, etc. being taught as competing theories/explanations.

But I oppose TOE being taught as an irrefutable scientific fact. .

 

[WinterBorn]

But speaking of grasping, why not try grasping the simple question I asked you? Perhaps you could answer it?

I am fine with TOE, ID, creationism, natural selection, etc. being taught as competing theories/explanations.

But I oppose TOE being taught as an irrefutable scientific fact. .

I have never seen Evolution taught as fact. Nor have I seen it presented as fact in any biology textbook. (and my degree is in Secondary Ed/Comprehensive Sciences)

In fact, I too would object to it being taught as fact.

ID or creationism have no place in a science curriculum.

 

[Sunni Man]

But speaking of grasping, why not try grasping the simple question I asked you? Perhaps you could answer it?

I am fine with TOE, ID, creationism, natural selection, etc. being taught as competing theories/explanations.

But I oppose TOE being taught as an irrefutable scientific fact. .

I have never seen Evolution taught as fact. Nor have I seen it presented as fact in any biology textbook. (and my degree is in Secondary Ed/Comprehensive Sciences)

In fact, I too would object to it being taught as fact.

ID or creationism have no place in a science curriculum.

ID (Intelligent Design) is just as valid as TOE. .

 

[WinterBorn]

I am fine with TOE, ID, creationism, natural selection, etc. being taught as competing theories/explanations.

But I oppose TOE being taught as an irrefutable scientific fact. .

I have never seen Evolution taught as fact. Nor have I seen it presented as fact in any biology textbook. (and my degree is in Secondary Ed/Comprehensive Sciences)

In fact, I too would object to it being taught as fact.

ID or creationism have no place in a science curriculum.

ID (Intelligent Design) is just as valid as TOE. .

In science class? The Theory of Evolution has many facets. You agreed that Natural Selection is acceptable, and that is a part of it. ID relies solely on some outside force acting on all life, and there is not one shred of evidence of the existence of that outside force, to say nothing of it actually accomplishing the creation of the millions of species we have.

 

[Sunni Man]

I have never seen Evolution taught as fact. Nor have I seen it presented as fact in any biology textbook. (and my degree is in Secondary Ed/Comprehensive Sciences)

In fact, I too would object to it being taught as fact.

ID or creationism have no place in a science curriculum.

ID (Intelligent Design) is just as valid as TOE. .

In science class? The Theory of Evolution has many facets. You agreed that Natural Selection is acceptable, and that is a part of it. ID relies solely on some outside force acting on all life, and there is not one shred of evidence of the existence of that outside force, to say nothing of it actually accomplishing the creation of the millions of species we have.

And yet, science doesn't have the slightest clue how life came into existence. .

 

[WinterBorn]

ID (Intelligent Design) is just as valid as TOE. .

In science class? The Theory of Evolution has many facets. You agreed that Natural Selection is acceptable, and that is a part of it. ID relies solely on some outside force acting on all life, and there is not one shred of evidence of the existence of that outside force, to say nothing of it actually accomplishing the creation of the millions of species we have.

And yet, science doesn't have the slightest clue how life came into existence. .

Evolution does not address how life came into existence. It never has.

As for the mechanism by which things "want" to crawl, fly, run and swim, it certainly does know and explains it.

Things move either towards food, reproduction, or safety or they move away from predators and danger. If everything moves slowly, the thing that moves faster will eat better, be safer, escape predators, and reproduce. The idea that any animal "wants" to do those things is not really a correct concept. "Want" is desiring something and is an abstract that lower life forms would not have.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

You don't know the definition of species....

...really unequipped for this conversation, aren't you.

 

[Sunni Man]

In science class? The Theory of Evolution has many facets. You agreed that Natural Selection is acceptable, and that is a part of it. ID relies solely on some outside force acting on all life, and there is not one shred of evidence of the existence of that outside force, to say nothing of it actually accomplishing the creation of the millions of species we have.

And yet, science doesn't have the slightest clue how life came into existence. .

Evolution does not address how life came into existence. It never has.

As for the mechanism by which things "want" to crawl, fly, run and swim, it certainly does know and explains it.

Things move either towards food, reproduction, or safety or they move away from predators and danger. If everything moves slowly, the thing that moves faster will eat better, be safer, escape predators, and reproduce. The idea that any animal "wants" to do those things is not really a correct concept. "Want" is desiring something and is an abstract that lower life forms would not have.

Semantics aside; science has No idea how life came about or what force determines the design/function of species.

Intelligent Design offers the only plausible explanation for this conundrum. .

 

[Old Rocks]

Lordy, lordy. Well, PC, why don't you just take your wonderful silliness down to the many universities in this nation and enlighten those poor benighted biologists.

 

[Old Rocks]

ID (Intelligent Design) is just as valid as TOE. .

In science class? The Theory of Evolution has many facets. You agreed that Natural Selection is acceptable, and that is a part of it. ID relies solely on some outside force acting on all life, and there is not one shred of evidence of the existence of that outside force, to say nothing of it actually accomplishing the creation of the millions of species we have.

And yet, science doesn't have the slightest clue how life came into existence. .

Life does not 'want' to do certain things. It develops the abilities to do those things in response to environmental pressures that make doing those things a benefit to the organisms survival.

 

[Hollie]

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.

The TOE is both elegant and largely verifiable.

Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya leaves you as the subject of ridicule.

 

[Hollie]

And yet, science doesn't have the slightest clue how life came into existence. .

Evolution does not address how life came into existence. It never has.

As for the mechanism by which things "want" to crawl, fly, run and swim, it certainly does know and explains it.

Things move either towards food, reproduction, or safety or they move away from predators and danger. If everything moves slowly, the thing that moves faster will eat better, be safer, escape predators, and reproduce. The idea that any animal "wants" to do those things is not really a correct concept. "Want" is desiring something and is an abstract that lower life forms would not have.

Semantics aside; science has No idea how life came about or what force determines the design/function of species.

Intelligent Design offers the only plausible explanation for this conundrum. .

As pointless as your usual babbling.

ID'iosy has no answers to the diversity of life on the planet, other than "the gawds didi it".

 

[Hollie]

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?

And you're still cutting and pasting these phony "quotes"?

My goodness but your time at the Harun Yahya website has been a cult indoctrination.

 

[WinterBorn]

"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?

You don't know the definition of species....

...really unequipped for this conversation, aren't you.

Oh I know full well what is required for them to be a separate species. But the inability to interbreed is very difficult to observe in the wild, and impossible to determine in the fossil records.

So, as I asked before, what would the transmutation of one species into another look like in the wild or in the fossil record? How would an observer know he was seeing it?

It is a simple question.

 

[WinterBorn]

And yet, science doesn't have the slightest clue how life came into existence. .

Evolution does not address how life came into existence. It never has.

As for the mechanism by which things "want" to crawl, fly, run and swim, it certainly does know and explains it.

Things move either towards food, reproduction, or safety or they move away from predators and danger. If everything moves slowly, the thing that moves faster will eat better, be safer, escape predators, and reproduce. The idea that any animal "wants" to do those things is not really a correct concept. "Want" is desiring something and is an abstract that lower life forms would not have.

Semantics aside; science has No idea how life came about or what force determines the design/function of species.

Intelligent Design offers the only plausible explanation for this conundrum. .

ID offers nothing but a backdoor to teaching creationism.

As I said before, Evolution does not deal with the origins of life, and it never has. It was never meant to be a description of how life began.

What determines the function of a species is a reverse way to look at it. Ifa species has a trait, characteristic or ability that allows it to win the competition for food & safety, it reproduces and passes on those genes. If it does not, it dies out. Any changes that are beneficial are passed on.