Is Darwinian Theory Even Science?

[rdean]

Understanding electricity didn't stop with Ben Franklin.

Understanding radioactivity didn't stop with Marie Curie.

Understanding communication didn't stop with Alexander Grahme Bell.

It only stands to reason that understanding evolution didn't stop with Darwin.

Yet, how many on the USMB quote Franklin, Curie or Bell? None I can think of.

Right wingers are "huh?" That doesn't even make any sense. Of course not. Not to them.

Threads like this one make it clear why Mitt Romney wanted to bring immigrants with degrees here to this country. Poor Mitt understood that his base was unteachable.

So.....did you want to compare education backgrounds?

I would never argue with some who has a "BS".

A bachelors in "Bible Study".

 

[PoliticalChic]

your a terrible christian

Amen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Threads like this one make it clear why Mitt Romney wanted to bring immigrants with degrees here to this country. Poor Mitt understood that his base was unteachable.

So.....did you want to compare education backgrounds?

I would never argue with some who has a "BS".

A bachelors in "Bible Study".

Wise to answer thus.

 

[konradv]

Is right wing theory even thought?

 

[rdean]

Is right wing theory even thought?

Ah, another "theory".

The short answer is "yes". Repeating what you are told to repeat requires at least minimum thought, simply to remember what it is you have been told to "repeat". So yes, right wing "theory" is thought. It's just the least possible amount of "thought".

 

[Moonglow]

no longer is it a choice, now according to some we are preprogrammed.

 

[rdean]

no longer is it a choice, now according to some we are preprogrammed.

"Preprogrammed" would suggest before birth. That is unlikely.

Programmed is more like it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lead article for GSA Today. The Evolution of Creationism. Interesting read. One wonders how some can be so blind to reality.

 

[midcan5]

A hard question is why evolution is unacceptable to some? It reminds me of conspiracy thinkers who cannot accept that sometimes things happen in ways that don't require hidden agents or goals. Stand in front of a mirror nude and then go about the other animal kingdom and you'll surely notice a similarity. Even religions today accept evolution as fact for the science is demonstrable. As for the soul we'll get there or not when we get there or not. Good stuff below, I've always found Williams interesting.

Evolutionary Theory

Frans Roes, "A Conversation With George C. Williams" 1998
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Adaptation-Natural-Selection-Christopher-Williams/dp/0691026157/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Adaptation and Natural Selection: George Christopher Williams: 9780691026152: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
The Third Culture - Chapter 1

'The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time' Jonathan Weiner

I thought this funny and on topic. Caption it. BBC Nature - Great apes may have 'mid-life crisis', a study suggests

"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka

 

[PoliticalChic]

A hard question is why evolution is unacceptable to some? It reminds me of conspiracy thinkers who cannot accept that sometimes things happen in ways that don't require hidden agents or goals. Stand in front of a mirror nude and then go about the other animal kingdom and you'll surely notice a similarity. Even religions today accept evolution as fact for the science is demonstrable. As for the soul we'll get there or not when we get there or not. Good stuff below, I've always found Williams interesting.

Evolutionary Theory

Frans Roes, "A Conversation With George C. Williams" 1998
Adaptation and Natural Selection: George Christopher Williams: 9780691026152: Amazon.com: Books
The Third Culture - Chapter 1

'The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time' Jonathan Weiner

I thought this funny and on topic. Caption it. BBC Nature - Great apes may have 'mid-life crisis', a study suggests

"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka

1. It is essential for this discussion that you address it as 'Darwinian evolution.'

2. There are other theories that are far more acceptable.

3. Perhaps the most significant objection to the acceptance of Darwinian evolution is the effect it has had, and given imprimatur:

"Peter Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.”
Fordham University, after barring Ann Coulter from campus, welcomes infanticide advocate Peter Singer | The Daily Caller


Are these ideas you are comfortable with?
Professor Singer was named a science adviser by Barack Obama.
The very same Barack Obama who refused to vote against infanticide.


I see the straight like from Darwinian evolution to Obama to Singer.
Don't you?

 

[Old Rocks]

1. Darwin's studies were the seminal studies that gave direction to the science of evolution. Molecular biology and genetics have much refined it since Darwin's time.

2. Other theories that are more acceptable? Name them and who they are accepted by. I know of no one that has successfully challenged the present theory of evolution.

3. What the fuck? Literally? What the hell does this crap have to do with anything but tillitating people like you? It has zero to do with evolutionary science, the fact that you posted this shit demonstrates that you have no point other than idiocy.

 

[jillian]

peter singer is a piece of garbage who says it's ok to lie in furtherance of your agenda and an animal rights' loon.

 

[Si modo]

A hard question is why evolution is unacceptable to some? It reminds me of conspiracy thinkers who cannot accept that sometimes things happen in ways that don't require hidden agents or goals. Stand in front of a mirror nude and then go about the other animal kingdom and you'll surely notice a similarity. Even religions today accept evolution as fact for the science is demonstrable. As for the soul we'll get there or not when we get there or not. Good stuff below, I've always found Williams interesting.

Evolutionary Theory

Frans Roes, "A Conversation With George C. Williams" 1998
Adaptation and Natural Selection: George Christopher Williams: 9780691026152: Amazon.com: Books
The Third Culture - Chapter 1

'The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time' Jonathan Weiner

I thought this funny and on topic. Caption it. BBC Nature - Great apes may have 'mid-life crisis', a study suggests

"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka

1. It is essential for this discussion that you address it as 'Darwinian evolution.'

2. There are other theories that are far more acceptable.

3. Perhaps the most significant objection to the acceptance of Darwinian evolution is the effect it has had, and given imprimatur:

"Peter Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.”
Fordham University, after barring Ann Coulter from campus, welcomes infanticide advocate Peter Singer | The Daily Caller


Are these ideas you are comfortable with?
Professor Singer was named a science adviser by Barack Obama.
The very same Barack Obama who refused to vote against infanticide.


I see the straight like from Darwinian evolution to Obama to Singer.
Don't you?

I like you, PC. But you are soooooooo off base on this that it is cringeworthy.

I would suggest that before you start discussing scientific theory, that you find out the distinct characteristics that make a theory a scientific one. Nothing touchy-feely or subjective about it - crystal clear characteristics

Start with Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Stanford has an excellent condensed version. Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[rdean]

A hard question is why evolution is unacceptable to some? It reminds me of conspiracy thinkers who cannot accept that sometimes things happen in ways that don't require hidden agents or goals. Stand in front of a mirror nude and then go about the other animal kingdom and you'll surely notice a similarity. Even religions today accept evolution as fact for the science is demonstrable. As for the soul we'll get there or not when we get there or not. Good stuff below, I've always found Williams interesting.

Evolutionary Theory

Frans Roes, "A Conversation With George C. Williams" 1998
Adaptation and Natural Selection: George Christopher Williams: 9780691026152: Amazon.com: Books
The Third Culture - Chapter 1

'The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time' Jonathan Weiner

I thought this funny and on topic. Caption it. BBC Nature - Great apes may have 'mid-life crisis', a study suggests

"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka

1. It is essential for this discussion that you address it as 'Darwinian evolution.'

2. There are other theories that are far more acceptable.

3. Perhaps the most significant objection to the acceptance of Darwinian evolution is the effect it has had, and given imprimatur:

"Peter Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.”
Fordham University, after barring Ann Coulter from campus, welcomes infanticide advocate Peter Singer | The Daily Caller


Are these ideas you are comfortable with?
Professor Singer was named a science adviser by Barack Obama.
The very same Barack Obama who refused to vote against infanticide.


I see the straight like from Darwinian evolution to Obama to Singer.
Don't you?

You are trying so hard to twist this into something is isn't. That's why you are an awful person. You really are awful.

He isn't a "science adviser" like, how does fusion work? His advice is on the "ethics" of science. This entire generation of Republicans have zero ethics. People who believe in "let him die" and "feed the poor and they will breed" are not ethical people. Many times, they are evil because of their lack of conscience and morals. You know what I'm talking about. I'm not attacking you when I say you are one of those people. I truly believe you have no ethics. What you write proves it beyond a doubt.

One of Singer's greatest essays, why some people live in wealth and abundance while others are starving and why that is morally indefensible. This is in direct opposition to Republican's "Feed the poor and they will breed" and cutting school lunches. Singer gives a huge portion of his salary to fighting hunger and to UNICEF. He puts his money where his mouth is and you malign him? Really?

Just because you can grow a third eye on the back of someone's head, would it be ethical do to that?

And why does ethics come up with abortion? Try to figure that one out.

You really outdid yourself this time. At least you have a "trade". And for that, you make "crumpled singles".

 

[newpolitics]

peter singer is a piece of garbage who says it's ok to lie in furtherance of your agenda and an animal rights' loon.

Your right, those animals rights loons are nuts to care about the interminable suffering of animals inside our own farming systems...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzrRmB40l00]From Farm To Fridge - YouTube[/ame]

Fuck you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

peter singer is a piece of garbage who says it's ok to lie in furtherance of your agenda and an animal rights' loon.

....selected by Barack Obama as worthy of a position in his administration.


Should tell you all you need to know.

Cass Sunstein, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, in his 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, suggested that animals be allowed to sue people.


Still better than the Illinois State Senator who would not support legislation that allowed infants born alive, as a result of an abortion that had gone wrong, be given medical aid and not left to died.
His name is Barack Obama.



Know anyone who would vote for any of these three?

 

[PoliticalChic]

A hard question is why evolution is unacceptable to some? It reminds me of conspiracy thinkers who cannot accept that sometimes things happen in ways that don't require hidden agents or goals. Stand in front of a mirror nude and then go about the other animal kingdom and you'll surely notice a similarity. Even religions today accept evolution as fact for the science is demonstrable. As for the soul we'll get there or not when we get there or not. Good stuff below, I've always found Williams interesting.

Evolutionary Theory

Frans Roes, "A Conversation With George C. Williams" 1998
Adaptation and Natural Selection: George Christopher Williams: 9780691026152: Amazon.com: Books
The Third Culture - Chapter 1

'The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time' Jonathan Weiner

I thought this funny and on topic. Caption it. BBC Nature - Great apes may have 'mid-life crisis', a study suggests

"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka

1. It is essential for this discussion that you address it as 'Darwinian evolution.'

2. There are other theories that are far more acceptable.

3. Perhaps the most significant objection to the acceptance of Darwinian evolution is the effect it has had, and given imprimatur:

"Peter Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.”
Fordham University, after barring Ann Coulter from campus, welcomes infanticide advocate Peter Singer | The Daily Caller


Are these ideas you are comfortable with?
Professor Singer was named a science adviser by Barack Obama.
The very same Barack Obama who refused to vote against infanticide.


I see the straight like from Darwinian evolution to Obama to Singer.
Don't you?

You are trying so hard to twist this into something is isn't. That's why you are an awful person. You really are awful.

He isn't a "science adviser" like, how does fusion work? His advice is on the "ethics" of science. This entire generation of Republicans have zero ethics. People who believe in "let him die" and "feed the poor and they will breed" are not ethical people. Many times, they are evil because of their lack of conscience and morals. You know what I'm talking about. I'm not attacking you when I say you are one of those people. I truly believe you have no ethics. What you write proves it beyond a doubt.

One of Singer's greatest essays, why some people live in wealth and abundance while others are starving and why that is morally indefensible. This is in direct opposition to Republican's "Feed the poor and they will breed" and cutting school lunches. Singer gives a huge portion of his salary to fighting hunger and to UNICEF. He puts his money where his mouth is and you malign him? Really?

Just because you can grow a third eye on the back of someone's head, would it be ethical do to that?

And why does ethics come up with abortion? Try to figure that one out.

You really outdid yourself this time. At least you have a "trade". And for that, you make "crumpled singles".

Singer writes, in Rethinking Life and Death:

Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.


Singer advocates the killing of certain newborn infants at the discretion of their parents. The criteria he proposes for deciding which infants may be killed center on a wide range of hereditary physical conditions which Singer considers “disabilities”. ... “We think that some infants with severe disabilities should be killed.”

What counts as a “severe disability” for Singer? He intentionally leaves the term vague to allow for a broad range of parental discretion,...
Peter Singer and Eugenics | Institute for Social Ecology


“The life of a fetus is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc.”Singer says....

During an interview, Singer was asked, “Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale?”

His answer: “No.”

He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be “raised as soon as possible after birth.”
Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries


And this is the thinking inherent in ObamaCare, as well. It is the basis for 'rationing healthcare,' an idea supported by Peter Singer and Barack Obama.



One might believe that you are vicious and sociopathic....

....but I know you are not. You are just very, very stupid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A hard question is why evolution is unacceptable to some? It reminds me of conspiracy thinkers who cannot accept that sometimes things happen in ways that don't require hidden agents or goals. Stand in front of a mirror nude and then go about the other animal kingdom and you'll surely notice a similarity. Even religions today accept evolution as fact for the science is demonstrable. As for the soul we'll get there or not when we get there or not. Good stuff below, I've always found Williams interesting.

Evolutionary Theory

Frans Roes, "A Conversation With George C. Williams" 1998
Adaptation and Natural Selection: George Christopher Williams: 9780691026152: Amazon.com: Books
The Third Culture - Chapter 1

'The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time' Jonathan Weiner

I thought this funny and on topic. Caption it. BBC Nature - Great apes may have 'mid-life crisis', a study suggests

"Quite possibly, this belief in our own opinion, regardless of the facts, may be what separates us from the nations of the world, what makes us unique in God’s eyes. The average German or Czech, though possibly no less ignorant than his American counterpart, will probably consider the possibility that someone who has spent his life studying something may have an opinion worth considering. Not the American. Although perfectly willing to recognize expertise in basketball, for example, or refrigerator repair, when it comes to the realm of ideas, all folks (and their opinions) are suddenly equal. Thus evolution is a damned lie, global warming a liberal hoax, and Republicans care about people like you." Mark Slouka

1. It is essential for this discussion that you address it as 'Darwinian evolution.'

2. There are other theories that are far more acceptable.

3. Perhaps the most significant objection to the acceptance of Darwinian evolution is the effect it has had, and given imprimatur:

"Peter Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.”
Fordham University, after barring Ann Coulter from campus, welcomes infanticide advocate Peter Singer | The Daily Caller


Are these ideas you are comfortable with?
Professor Singer was named a science adviser by Barack Obama.
The very same Barack Obama who refused to vote against infanticide.


I see the straight like from Darwinian evolution to Obama to Singer.
Don't you?

I like you, PC. But you are soooooooo off base on this that it is cringeworthy.

I would suggest that before you start discussing scientific theory, that you find out the distinct characteristics that make a theory a scientific one. Nothing touchy-feely or subjective about it - crystal clear characteristics

Start with Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Stanford has an excellent condensed version. Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hey....neat!

And while I'm reviewing that, you might see if you can grasp the significance of these:


1. Alfred Wallace, co-author of Darwin's opus, in an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), wrote the following: Wallace observes in this essay, "Certain of our "physical characteristics are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" --

2. David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)

3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)

4. Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution.


5.Steven J. Gould said: "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." (Natural History, 86:12-16)


Alfred Wallace, David Kitts, the Chicago Museum of Natural History, Robert Carroll, Steven J. Gould.....

...did you notice that none of 'em say '"PoliticalChic" wrote this.'?


Did you want to label them as "cringeworthy"?

Or...you can simply ignore them and pretend that supports your view of science.


I like you too....but you seem to, at least in this area, choose to ignore the flaws in Darwinian evolution, that should more correctly assign it to the area of political philosophy than to science.
Trotsy understood it as such.

And, that behavior, is why I contend that the acceptance is more based on faith than empirical data.


Of course, even folks with your belief agree, I assume, agree that the theory doesn't comport with the scientific method as far as being based on reproducible experimentation.
True?

 

[Si modo]

1. It is essential for this discussion that you address it as 'Darwinian evolution.'

2. There are other theories that are far more acceptable.

3. Perhaps the most significant objection to the acceptance of Darwinian evolution is the effect it has had, and given imprimatur:

"Peter Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals. “Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.” “Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.”
Fordham University, after barring Ann Coulter from campus, welcomes infanticide advocate Peter Singer | The Daily Caller


Are these ideas you are comfortable with?
Professor Singer was named a science adviser by Barack Obama.
The very same Barack Obama who refused to vote against infanticide.


I see the straight like from Darwinian evolution to Obama to Singer.
Don't you?

I like you, PC. But you are soooooooo off base on this that it is cringeworthy.

I would suggest that before you start discussing scientific theory, that you find out the distinct characteristics that make a theory a scientific one. Nothing touchy-feely or subjective about it - crystal clear characteristics

Start with Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Stanford has an excellent condensed version. Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hey....neat!

And while I'm reviewing that, you might see if you can grasp the significance of these:


1. Alfred Wallace, co-author of Darwin's opus, in an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), wrote the following: Wallace observes in this essay, "Certain of our "physical characteristics are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" --

2. David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)

3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)

4. Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution.


5.Steven J. Gould said: "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." (Natural History, 86:12-16)


Alfred Wallace, David Kitts, the Chicago Museum of Natural History, Robert Carroll, Steven J. Gould.....

...did you notice that none of 'em say '"PoliticalChic" wrote this.'?


Did you want to label them as "cringeworthy"?

Or...you can simply ignore them and pretend that supports your view of science.


I like you too....but you seem to, at least in this area, choose to ignore the flaws in Darwinian evolution, that should more correctly assign it to the area of political philosophy than to science.
Trotsy understood it as such.

And, that behavior, is why I contend that the acceptance is more based on faith than empirical data.


Of course, even folks with your belief agree, I assume, agree that the theory doesn't comport with the scientific method as far as being based on reproducible experimentation.
True?

PC, yeah...you are making me cringe.

You have zero understanding of what a scientific theory is.

Nothing you posted falsifies the theory of evolution. What you did quote, were valid scientific questions - they drive the furtherance of knowledge.

Scientific theory without valid scientific questions ends inquiry...ends the pursuit of knowledge.

Questions are good. But they do nothing to disprove a scientific theory.


You should read what a scientific theory actually is, but I understand your resistance to do so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I like you, PC. But you are soooooooo off base on this that it is cringeworthy.

I would suggest that before you start discussing scientific theory, that you find out the distinct characteristics that make a theory a scientific one. Nothing touchy-feely or subjective about it - crystal clear characteristics

Start with Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Stanford has an excellent condensed version. Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hey....neat!

And while I'm reviewing that, you might see if you can grasp the significance of these:


1. Alfred Wallace, co-author of Darwin's opus, in an essay entitled "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climates and the Origin of Species" (1869), wrote the following: Wallace observes in this essay, "Certain of our "physical characteristics are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" --

2. David B. Kitts, evolutionist and paleontologist,: "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (“Evolution, 28:467)

3. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)

4. Robert L. Carroll, vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoicamphibians and reptiles, in “Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution,” states that “most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account” of evolution.


5.Steven J. Gould said: "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." (Natural History, 86:12-16)


Alfred Wallace, David Kitts, the Chicago Museum of Natural History, Robert Carroll, Steven J. Gould.....

...did you notice that none of 'em say '"PoliticalChic" wrote this.'?


Did you want to label them as "cringeworthy"?

Or...you can simply ignore them and pretend that supports your view of science.


I like you too....but you seem to, at least in this area, choose to ignore the flaws in Darwinian evolution, that should more correctly assign it to the area of political philosophy than to science.
Trotsy understood it as such.

And, that behavior, is why I contend that the acceptance is more based on faith than empirical data.


Of course, even folks with your belief agree, I assume, agree that the theory doesn't comport with the scientific method as far as being based on reproducible experimentation.
True?

PC, yeah...you are making me cringe.

You have zero understanding of what a scientific theory is.

Nothing you posted falsifies the theory of evolution. What you did quote, were valid scientific questions - they drive the furtherance of knowledge.

Scientific theory without valid scientific questions ends inquiry...ends the pursuit of knowledge.

Questions are good. But they do nothing to disprove a scientific theory.


You should read what a scientific theory actually is, but I understand your resistance to do so.

"PC, yeah...you are making me cringe."

And...does that apply to Gould and the others quoted?

I usually assume that folks who respond to the messenger do so because they have no logical way to answer the message.

I would be sad if that were true of you.


"You should read what a scientific theory actually is,..."
Having read the thread, you know that I am fully aware of the above....but it is another kind of attack on the messenger.
Weak.

“ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter." Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism," Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”