Darwinism

[Newtonian]

Perhaps the title of Political Chic's thread is why it was moved to the rubber room. But I think a discussion of the reasons why Darwinian evolution is favored are involved in depth with science.

So, I started a separate thread on Darwinism - specifically what observational evidence is there for Darwinian evolution?

Darwin noted evidence of micro-evolution in varieties of finches on the Galapagos Islands. A common example of observational evidence of evolution is the Peppered moth. But in both cases no new kind of animal evolved - rather, variation due to natural selection in different environments, or separation and inbreeding in geographically different locations are involved. The finches were still finches and no new species of moth evolved either.

Another example of observational evidence is the change in skull shape and dog snout of the Bull Terrier in 40 years due to epigenetic coding - specifically tandem repeat sequences formerly called Junk DNA by evolutionists.

I will start with the peppered moth - but feel free to post any observational evidence. The fossil record is another subject - perhaps there is another thread discussing the fossil record?

There is plenty of literature published about the Peppered moth - I hope you all don't mind my starting with our literature:

Mutations—A Basis for Evolution? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"The Peppered Moth

18, 19. What claim is made for the peppered moth, and why?

18 Often in evolutionary literature England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.”⁠20 After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.”⁠21 The case was, of course, the peppered moth.

19 Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.

20. How did an English medical journal explain that the peppered moth was not evolving?

20 But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”⁠22

reference 22 -
On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9.

 

[zaangalewa]

Darwinism is a racist ideoloy. Better to use the expression "theory of evolution".

I do not think by the way that the person "Darwin" is as important as the most people seem to think. Since about 20,000 years human beings worked with breeding selection. The step to see that nature is using the same principles, which we used because we were always watching what nature was doing, is not really the titanic deed of a single genius. The monk Gregor Mendel for example explained only by watching plants and experimenting with plants a lot about genetic theory.

The anglo-american discussion "evolution vs creation" is unfortunatelly one of the most neverending stupid discussions I ever heard in my life. In general are "creation" and "evolution" two totally different processes. Both processes don't exclude each other. If someone would discuss "electromagnetism vs gravity" it would be a similar senseless discussion. Evolution needs creation.

 

[konradv]

Darwinism is a racist ideology....,

...but evolution is science.

 

[BULLDOG]

Darwinism is a racist ideoloy. Better to use the expression "theory of evolution".

I do not think by the way that the person "Darwin" is as important as the most people seem to think. Since about 20,000 years human beings worked with breeding selection. The step to see that nature is using the same principles, which we used because we were always watching what nature was doing, is not really the titanic deed of a single genius. The monk Gergor Mendel for example explained only by watching plants and experimenting with plants a lot about genetic theory.

You are correct to say Darwin is not that important. However, the observations he made on the evolution of species is unquestionably important to our understanding of the development of life on Earth. As always, it is the science that matters. If he didn't make those discoveries, somebody else would have.

 

[zaangalewa]

Darwinism is a racist ideology....,

...but evolution is science.

That's one of the idiotic parts of this neverending discussion from and for idiots. Why do you say this? Is an apple, which falls from a tree on the head of Newton, science?

 

[zaangalewa]

Darwinism is a racist ideoloy. Better to use the expression "theory of evolution".

I do not think by the way that the person "Darwin" is as important as the most people seem to think. Since about 20,000 years human beings worked with breeding selection. The step to see that nature is using the same principles, which we used because we were always watching what nature was doing, is not really the titanic deed of a single genius. The monk Gergor Mendel for example explained only by watching plants and experimenting with plants a lot about genetic theory.

You are correct to say Darwin is not that important. However, the observations he made on the evolution of species is unquestionably important to our understanding of the development of life on Earth.

He was one of the people, who saw this.

As always, it is the science that matters.

And what means this now?

If he didn't make those discoveries, somebody else would have.

As far as I heard Darwin stole a lot from Alfred Russel Wallace. And what about the idea that thieves sometimes don't like to believe in god any longer?

 

[BULLDOG]

Darwinism is a racist ideology....,

...but evolution is science.

That's one of the idiotic parts of this neverending discussion from and for idiots. Why do you say this? Is an apple, which falls from a tree on the head of Newton, science?

No. The apple its self is not science. It is just an apple. The facts that can be determined based on the event of that apple falling are science. You don't understand that?

 

[BULLDOG]

Darwinism is a racist ideoloy. Better to use the expression "theory of evolution".

I do not think by the way that the person "Darwin" is as important as the most people seem to think. Since about 20,000 years human beings worked with breeding selection. The step to see that nature is using the same principles, which we used because we were always watching what nature was doing, is not really the titanic deed of a single genius. The monk Gergor Mendel for example explained only by watching plants and experimenting with plants a lot about genetic theory.

You are correct to say Darwin is not that important. However, the observations he made on the evolution of species is unquestionably important to our understanding of the development of life on Earth.

He was one of the people, who saw this.

As always, it is the science that matters.

And what means this now?

If he didn't make those discoveries, somebody else would have.

As far as I heard Darwin stole a lot from Alfred Russel Wallace. And what about the idea that thieves sometimes don't like to believe in god any longer?

I'm not sure if you are getting weird, or just showing how dumb you are. Either way, it has no bearing on what the science tells us.

 

[zaangalewa]

Darwinism is a racist ideology....,

...but evolution is science.

That's one of the idiotic parts of this neverending discussion from and for idiots. Why do you say this? Is an apple, which falls from a tree on the head of Newton, science?

No. The apple its self is not science. It is just an apple. The facts that can be determined based on the event of that apple falling are science. You don't understand that?

Sure I don't understand this. I am an idiot. That's why never an evolution fell on my fell.

 

[zaangalewa]

Darwinism is a racist ideoloy. Better to use the expression "theory of evolution".

I do not think by the way that the person "Darwin" is as important as the most people seem to think. Since about 20,000 years human beings worked with breeding selection. The step to see that nature is using the same principles, which we used because we were always watching what nature was doing, is not really the titanic deed of a single genius. The monk Gergor Mendel for example explained only by watching plants and experimenting with plants a lot about genetic theory.

You are correct to say Darwin is not that important. However, the observations he made on the evolution of species is unquestionably important to our understanding of the development of life on Earth.

He was one of the people, who saw this.

As always, it is the science that matters.

And what means this now?

If he didn't make those discoveries, somebody else would have.

As far as I heard Darwin stole a lot from Alfred Russel Wallace. And what about the idea that thieves sometimes don't like to believe in god any longer?

I'm not sure if you are getting weird, or just showing how dumb you are. ...

Bye bye. Was a nice discussion.

 

[BULLDOG]

Darwinism is a racist ideology....,

...but evolution is science.

That's one of the idiotic parts of this neverending discussion from and for idiots. Why do you say this? Is an apple, which falls from a tree on the head of Newton, science?

No. The apple its self is not science. It is just an apple. The facts that can be determined based on the event of that apple falling are science. You don't understand that?

Sure I don't understand this. I am an idiot. That's why never an evolution fell on my fell.

I understood that was the case when you asked such a dumb question.

 

[james bond]

Darwinism is a racist ideology....,

...but evolution is science.

Evolution is false science. Darwin only explained how ToE worked and did not invent it contrary to popular belief. Darwin was only right about natural selection. Actually, Christian Alfred Russel Wallace was only right about natural selection.

Darwin ended up promoting "survival of the fittest" which to him meant that there were superior species instead of species changing in order to survive. It means I am better than you and the lighter the skin the better. It made Darwin a rich man.

Darwinism led to social Darwinism, eugenics (created by Darwin's cousin Frances Galton whom Darwin supported), Nazism, Hitler, the Holocaust, black genocide, Planned Parenthood, and worse things.

We may not have WW III in our lifetimes, but we may experience race wars due to Darwin.

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a Fact
God is a Theory

 

[zaangalewa]

Darwinism is a racist ideology....,

...but evolution is science.

Evolution is false science. ...

Evolution is not a science - evolution is an apple ... ah sorry: a fact. And the expression "false science" is an empty phrase. Natural science is natural science.

...Christian Alfred Russel Wallace was only right about natural selection. ...

Wallace was a Christian? I'm not sure whether this is true. Indeed is "his" view to the concept of natural selections of populations much more interesting than Darwins view on the natural selection of individuals.

And with the rest you are not totally wrong - for sure it's better not to believe in anything what has to do with the theory of evolution as to misunderstand what it is really. For a Christian point of view the theory of evolution shows for example that everyone has with everyone else a common ancestor - so we are all indeed brothers and sisters. But this not stops: Every living entity has with every other living entity on our planet a common ancestor - and voila: Best greetings from Saint Francis: sister sun - brother moon ... ah sorry that was German - all others say: brother sun, sister moon.

 

[Hollie]

Perhaps the title of Political Chic's thread is why it was moved to the rubber room. But I think a discussion of the reasons why Darwinian evolution is favored are involved in depth with science.

So, I started a separate thread on Darwinism - specifically what observational evidence is there for Darwinian evolution?

Darwin noted evidence of micro-evolution in varieties of finches on the Galapagos Islands. A common example of observational evidence of evolution is the Peppered moth. But in both cases no new kind of animal evolved - rather, variation due to natural selection in different environments, or separation and inbreeding in geographically different locations are involved. The finches were still finches and no new species of moth evolved either.

Another example of observational evidence is the change in skull shape and dog snout of the Bull Terrier in 40 years due to epigenetic coding - specifically tandem repeat sequences formerly called Junk DNA by evolutionists.

I will start with the peppered moth - but feel free to post any observational evidence. The fossil record is another subject - perhaps there is another thread discussing the fossil record?

There is plenty of literature published about the Peppered moth - I hope you all don't mind my starting with our literature:

Mutations—A Basis for Evolution? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"The Peppered Moth

18, 19. What claim is made for the peppered moth, and why?

18 Often in evolutionary literature England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.”⁠20 After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.”⁠21 The case was, of course, the peppered moth.

19 Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.

20. How did an English medical journal explain that the peppered moth was not evolving?

20 But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”⁠22

reference 22 -
On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9.

Adaptation to an environment (descent with modification) is an evolutionary mechanism.

I think you’re hoping to obfuscate genuine evolutionary processes by using creationist literature. Yes, the creationist literature will promote a viewpoint that is absent a scientific vocabulary in an attempt to mischaracterize the scientific view of evolution. This is meant deliberately to rig the prejudices of any “debate audience” by ignorant and illegitimate confusion of terms such as “speciation” and and attempting to make an analogy for evolution. In fact, evolution precedes by “unblind chance,” and it was the great contribution of Darwin’s original theory that it identified and explained the process by which descent with modification could arise in an ordered way from the interaction between organisms and their environment.

And yet, the creationists they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that evidence of adaptation to require accommodation.

The evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming and comes from multiple different sources, each of which independently establishes the identical pattern of evolutionary descent. The sources for that evidence come independently from anatomy, genetics, biogeography, biochemistry and the fossil record.


Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding. This is what the “ring species” demonstrate so elegantly.

The genetic mutations within species are “synchronized and harmonized” through the many well understood processes we together call “population genetics.” You might want to familiarize yourself with that.

Shirley, the JW’s have some canned material?

 

[zaangalewa]

Evolution is a Fact

Exactly.

God is a Theory

Nonsense.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Adaptation to an environment (descent with modification) is an evolutionary mechanism. ...

And has this something to do for example with the evolution of cars?

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a Fact

Exactly.

God is a Theory

Nonsense.

God can’t even qualify as a theory
There are no facts supporting it

 

[BULLDOG]

... Adaptation to an environment (descent with modification) is an evolutionary mechanism. ...

And has this something to do for example with the evolution of cars?

With every additional post, you reinforce what you wrote in #9

 

[zaangalewa]

... Different species do not exchange genetic information.

Except for example viruses (or human beings) bring genetic material from one species to another species.

One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations, until such time that enough genetic distance is established to prevent interbreeding.

This would mean biological species are a product of sex. What with asexual species?