Comrade Darwin

[Hollie]

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

[MENTION=11674]Sunni Man[/MENTION]

Science is moving away from the theory of natural selection for the reasons I stated. It simply does not account for the genetics involved. Darwin did not know that all of life is programed by genes to develop the way it does. Changes within species certainly makes sense under the theory of natural selection. The organism with the characteristic that is best suited for its environment is going to be the one that survives and procreates. But natural selection as to speciation fails when you bring in genetics.

Knowing what we know about genetics, natural selection would have to involve change at the genetic level, e.g. gain or loss of a gene which brings about mutation. Few things cause genetic mutations. Age and time are not two of those things. Radiation and chemicals are. Those things have been born out by survivors of nuclear power/weapons use and in our veterans from Vietnam whose progeny and they themselves have been the victims of genetic mutation secondary to chemicals like agent orange. Radiation I can easily envision if the earth's atmosphere were not always as protective as it is now, but I don't really think the reptiles of ages past were getting very high or dropping much agent orange. But those mutations do not elevate the species. They tend to disable or shorten life. Think spina bifida, and diabetes, and Parkinson's disease, three common ailments the first in their children and the second two in Vietnams themselves.

Science itself is evolving to account for the fact that Darwin didn't know jack shit about genetics.

We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient.

During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics and population biology into studies of evolution led to a Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized the importance of mutation and variation within a population. Natural selection then became a process that altered the frequency of genes in a population and this defined evolution. This point of view held sway for many decades but more recently the classic Neo-Darwinian view has been replaced by a new concept which includes several other mechanisms in addition to natural selection. Current ideas on evolution are usually referred to as the Modern Synthesis which is described by Futuyma;


"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

This description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift. The modern theory of the mechanism of evolution differs from Darwinism in three important respects:

1. It recognizes several mechanisms of evolution in addition to natural selection. One of these, random genetic drift, may be as important as natural selection.
2. It recognizes that characteristics are inherited as discrete entities called genes. Variation within a population is due to the presence of multiple alleles of a gene.
3. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.

The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution

This is an interesting article. Those who religiously subscribe to Darwin's theory really need to avail themselves of some of the knowledge that came about since his own personal Dark Age.


Damn, I wish PC would stop forcing me to show my education. I much prefer just being the board bitch.

I love it!



I read this....

Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly:
"The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).
Werner Gitt, "In the Beginning Was Information," 2nd edition p. 88.



Imagine Marx rolling over in his grave, reading this: "A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]"

Werner Gitt. Another Flat Earth creationist.


Information Theory and Creationism: Werner Gitt

 

[PoliticalChic]

[MENTION=11674]Sunni Man[/MENTION]

Science is moving away from the theory of natural selection for the reasons I stated. It simply does not account for the genetics involved. Darwin did not know that all of life is programed by genes to develop the way it does. Changes within species certainly makes sense under the theory of natural selection. The organism with the characteristic that is best suited for its environment is going to be the one that survives and procreates. But natural selection as to speciation fails when you bring in genetics.

Knowing what we know about genetics, natural selection would have to involve change at the genetic level, e.g. gain or loss of a gene which brings about mutation. Few things cause genetic mutations. Age and time are not two of those things. Radiation and chemicals are. Those things have been born out by survivors of nuclear power/weapons use and in our veterans from Vietnam whose progeny and they themselves have been the victims of genetic mutation secondary to chemicals like agent orange. Radiation I can easily envision if the earth's atmosphere were not always as protective as it is now, but I don't really think the reptiles of ages past were getting very high or dropping much agent orange. But those mutations do not elevate the species. They tend to disable or shorten life. Think spina bifida, and diabetes, and Parkinson's disease, three common ailments the first in their children and the second two in Vietnams themselves.

Science itself is evolving to account for the fact that Darwin didn't know jack shit about genetics.



The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution

This is an interesting article. Those who religiously subscribe to Darwin's theory really need to avail themselves of some of the knowledge that came about since his own personal Dark Age.


Damn, I wish PC would stop forcing me to show my education. I much prefer just being the board bitch.

I love it!



I read this....

Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly:
"The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).
Werner Gitt, "In the Beginning Was Information," 2nd edition p. 88.



Imagine Marx rolling over in his grave, reading this: "A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]"

Werner Gitt. Another Flat Earth creationist.


Information Theory and Creationism: Werner Gitt

If Gitt's views on the origin of species cause his statements to be called into question....

...now, watch carefully how I hang you with your own words.....


....don't Stephen J. Gould's communism and atheism call his endorsing Darwin's theory in question?



Wow.....don't you wish you were smart enough to do that?????



Unfortunately, your ancestors came to this country looking for bananas.

 

[Hollie]

I love it!



I read this....

Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly:
"The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).
Werner Gitt, "In the Beginning Was Information," 2nd edition p. 88.



Imagine Marx rolling over in his grave, reading this: "A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]"

Werner Gitt. Another Flat Earth creationist.


Information Theory and Creationism: Werner Gitt

If Gitt's views on the origin of species cause his statements to be called into question....

...now, watch carefully how I hang you with your own words.....


....don't Stephen J. Gould's communism and atheism call his endorsing Darwin's theory in question?



Wow.....don't you wish you were smart enough to do that?????



Unfortunately, your ancestors came to this country looking for bananas.

The above ranks up there with some of your most mindless prattle.


Don't you wish you were smart enough to have left the Harun Yahya madrassah, earlier?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Werner Gitt. Another Flat Earth creationist.


Information Theory and Creationism: Werner Gitt

If Gitt's views on the origin of species cause his statements to be called into question....

...now, watch carefully how I hang you with your own words.....


....don't Stephen J. Gould's communism and atheism call his endorsing Darwin's theory in question?



Wow.....don't you wish you were smart enough to do that?????



Unfortunately, your ancestors came to this country looking for bananas.

The above ranks up there with some of your most mindless prattle.


Don't you wish you were smart enough to have left the Harun Yahya madrassah, earlier?

You keep repeating the same nonsense.....I gave you quite the opportunity to show how smart you are (giggle giggle).....in the long, detailed OP.


C'mon....take on the OP so I can rip you to shreds.


That is what you're afraid of.....isn't it.

 

[Hollie]

If Gitt's views on the origin of species cause his statements to be called into question....

...now, watch carefully how I hang you with your own words.....


....don't Stephen J. Gould's communism and atheism call his endorsing Darwin's theory in question?



Wow.....don't you wish you were smart enough to do that?????



Unfortunately, your ancestors came to this country looking for bananas.

The above ranks up there with some of your most mindless prattle.


Don't you wish you were smart enough to have left the Harun Yahya madrassah, earlier?

You keep repeating the same nonsense.....I gave you quite the opportunity to show how smart you are (giggle giggle).....in the long, detailed OP.


C'mon....take on the OP so I can rip you to shreds.


That is what you're afraid of.....isn't it.

Your posts are nothing more than cut and paste snippets of creationist babble.

Why do you suppose you're a laughable joke?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The above ranks up there with some of your most mindless prattle.


Don't you wish you were smart enough to have left the Harun Yahya madrassah, earlier?

You keep repeating the same nonsense.....I gave you quite the opportunity to show how smart you are (giggle giggle).....in the long, detailed OP.


C'mon....take on the OP so I can rip you to shreds.


That is what you're afraid of.....isn't it.

Your posts are nothing more than cut and paste snippets of creationist babble.

Why do you suppose you're a laughable joke?

If you can't add to the discussion, or debated the OP.....just go away.

You're a bore.

 

[Hollie]

You keep repeating the same nonsense.....I gave you quite the opportunity to show how smart you are (giggle giggle).....in the long, detailed OP.


C'mon....take on the OP so I can rip you to shreds.


That is what you're afraid of.....isn't it.

Your posts are nothing more than cut and paste snippets of creationist babble.

Why do you suppose you're a laughable joke?

If you can't add to the discussion, or debated the OP.....just go away.

You're a bore.

I was waiting to see if you could cobble together a coherent sentence that wasn't stolen from Harun Yahya.

Alas, you're just a cut and paster.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your posts are nothing more than cut and paste snippets of creationist babble.

Why do you suppose you're a laughable joke?

If you can't add to the discussion, or debated the OP.....just go away.

You're a bore.

I was waiting to see if you could cobble together a coherent sentence that wasn't stolen from Harun Yahya.

Alas, you're just a cut and paster.

Worse than just a liar....you're boring.
Be gone.

 

[Hollie]

If you can't add to the discussion, or debated the OP.....just go away.

You're a bore.

I was waiting to see if you could cobble together a coherent sentence that wasn't stolen from Harun Yahya.

Alas, you're just a cut and paster.

Worse than just a liar....you're boring.
Be gone.

I'm on a mission from the gods to expose the liars, cheats and cut & paste hacks.

You're on that list.

You already admitted to being "Worse than a liar"

 

[mamooth]

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

The examples I provided were hard science. They disprove your cult rambling, your cult brain can't process that, so you auto-discard it all.

....that would be you.

Since you're just going to discard all data that contradicts your religious beliefs, what's the point in speaking with you? Religious nutters like you are only good for comic relief.

 

[mamooth]

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

So, you don't want to discuss the connections between Nazism and Christianity. Why not? Obfuscation?

Since you're plainly not very bright, I'll help you out here. If linking evolution and Marxism is a valid tactic, then linking Nazism and Christianity is every bit as valid. And thus, being a fervent Christian, you admit to having Nazi tendencies yourself.

So, either this thread is crap, or, by your own standards, you're a goosestepping Nazi. Please tell us which is the case.

 

[Steven_R]

Or both!

Seriously, the whole point of this thread is dildos. Darwin came up with an explanation to explain some aspect of the natural world and then some assholes came along and used that science as a justification for whatever. Science is apolitical. The idea that commies liked Darwin so that means Darwin is a commie is sheer stupidity. It's like saying Archimedes is a Nazi because U-Boat designs involve displacement or that Newton was a flag-waving patriotic American because we use calculus to shoot rockets to the moon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

So, you don't want to discuss the connections between Nazism and Christianity. Why not? Obfuscation?

Since you're plainly not very bright, I'll help you out here. If linking evolution and Marxism is a valid tactic, then linking Nazism and Christianity is every bit as valid. And thus, being a fervent Christian, you admit to having Nazi tendencies yourself.

So, either this thread is crap, or, by your own standards, you're a goosestepping Nazi. Please tell us which is the case.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326424-darwin-s-apparatchiks.html

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

So let me get this right....because Marx cherry picked stuff out of Darwin and applied it to his political thinking, that makes Darwin a communist.

Do you ever have moments of clarity where you look at what you wrote and realize you're out where the buses don't run?

It makes Darwin the spiritual father of communism. He is to this very day. Why do you think the sucker fish have more rights than you do?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

So let me get this right....because Marx cherry picked stuff out of Darwin and applied it to his political thinking, that makes Darwin a communist.

Do you ever have moments of clarity where you look at what you wrote and realize you're out where the buses don't run?

It makes Darwin the spiritual father of communism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So let me get this right....because Marx cherry picked stuff out of Darwin and applied it to his political thinking, that makes Darwin a communist.

Do you ever have moments of clarity where you look at what you wrote and realize you're out where the buses don't run?

It makes Darwin the spiritual father of communism.

And without Darwin, communism has no acceptable hook to hang on.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"We need a permanent revolution in education."

"'Permanent revolution?' Where have I heard that?"

"I got it from a book."

"What book?"

"The little red book."

"You wanna quote Mau?! I think we'll refrain from, quoting communists when writing for the President."

"You think communists never wrote an elegant phrase? How dya think they got everyone to be communists?"

-"The West Wing"

 

[PoliticalChic]

"We need a permanent revolution in education."

"'Permanent revolution?' Where have I heard that?"

"I got it from a book."

"What book?"

"The little red book."

"You wanna quote Mau?! I think we'll refrain from, quoting communists when writing for the President."

"You think communists never wrote an elegant phrase? How dya think they got everyone to be communists?"

-"The West Wing"

""You wanna quote Mau (sic)?! I think we'll refrain from, quoting communists when writing for the President."

"You think communists never wrote an elegant phrase? How dya think they got everyone to be communists?" "





Hate to be serious in response, but I feel the need to remind that it was Franklin Roosevelt who was enamored with Stalin and communism....and lied to the American people to cover up its atrocities and and inhumanity.

Communists infiltrated all the avenues of dissemination of information....resulting in the situation we have today.


Those with insight, and who have studied history know the truth.