Darwinism

[zaangalewa]

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.

Wow. That was among your more unhinged, hysterical rants

Much of it is educated opinion and historical facts. If evolution was fact, then we could both use it. The only parts we both can use is natural selection. We can't use 4.54 billion year old Earth because nothing lasts that long. Certainly, not rocks and fossils. Thus, ToE is wrong and not facts.

You're certainly free to believe the conspiracy theories that sustain you. Just don't expect that of others.

So to be able to reduce an apple in the own thoughts to its gravity and to find out via ways of mathematics that this means the moon falls not on ones own head but stays im the sky is science. This reduced for sure his fear the syk could fall on his head. But this was not his only motivation to find this out. There was also a lot of spirituality and mystics in his mind. I guess today the atheistst would throw him out of every university together with his voodoo and afterwards they will live til the end of time in fear the sky could fall on their heads.

 

[zaangalewa]

Hundreds of millions of years of fossils records.

Fossils don't last that long and there are no transitional ones.

Dickinsonia is the name we gave the animal which left the eldest fossil of an animal on planet Earth. This fossil is 550 million years old.

Information about this lifeform: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickinsonia

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But this was not his only motivation to find this out. There was also a lot of spirituality and mystics in his mind.

And we have gotten good results without that, too. That's pretty definitive evidence that it's not necessary. I would say the curiosity that led him to scientific discovery was the same curiosity that led him to mysticism. One does not deserve any credit for the other. They do not overlap. They are not fundamentally compatible methods. If you happen to arrive at the same end using each, chalk that up to coincidence; only one of the two paths is based on evidence.

 

[zaangalewa]

But this was not his only motivation to find this out. There was also a lot of spirituality and mystics in his mind.

And we have gotten good results without that, too.

Who is "we"?

That's pretty definitive evidence that it's not necessary.

What is not necessary?

I would say the curiosity that led him to scientific discovery was the same curiosity that led him to mysticism.

My dog is unbelievable curious - but damned bad in physics. By the way - the success of the theory of Newton was basing on the ideas of Kepler. Wonderful mathematics.

One does not deserve any credit for the other.

Hmm - I guess you said something whith this sentence - and perhaps one day I will understand it - or not.

They do not overlap.

What does not overlap?`

They are not fundamentally compatible methods.

What are fundamentally compatible methods? What for heavens sake do you speak about?

If you happen to arrive at the same end using each,

?

chalk that up to coincidence; only one of the two paths is based on evidence.

Which coincidence? Which two paths? Which evidence? ...

 

[Newtonian]

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.

You are correct. I used that title because Darwin is linked to the theory of Evolution. Those of my religion (Jehovah's Witnesses) believe in creation and micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution. This is because of both Biblical and Scientific reasons. God (Jehovah) could have created plants and animals so they could evolve into each other - but he didn't.

All the Bible says is that plants and animals reproduce after their own kind. This is a good thing. If you want Petunias and plant Petunia seeds you get Petunia plants. Usually of the same variety - though the wild type may assert itself in future generations.

If you marry and want children, you will not get chimps. Another good thing!

 

[Newtonian]

Darwinism is a racist ideology....,

...but evolution is science.

Micro-evolution is science. Bees help with that.

Creation is also science. LIfe cannot arise by chance. Scientific observation supports biogenesis. Chemistry confirms this.

 

[Newtonian]

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.

True - but what did Darwin actually discover? A wonderful variation in finches on the Galapagos Islands - see this Britannica article on speciation (my religion accepts speciation but rejects macro-evolution:

Speciation | Causes, Process, & Types

Speciation, the formation of new and distinct species by splitting a single lineage into two or more genetically independent ones. Hypotheses regarding how speciation begins differ in the role of geographic isolation and the origin of reproductive isolation (preventing populations from breeding...

www.britannica.com

Excerpt:

"
Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands, which may have speciated allopatrically because of volcanic eruptions that divided populations, is a famous example.




The same is true of cat species - I have posted examples of that on another thread.

 

[Newtonian]

Evolution is a Fact
God is a Theory

MIcro-evolution is a fact confirmed by actual scientific observation.

Macro-evolution is a theory without any observational evidence and is speculation.

Curious why you bring God into the picture?

 

[Newtonian]

Hollie - you posted in post 15:
"Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations,..."

Actually, point mutations on DNA are not the primary source of micro-evolution - and mutations are 99% harmful and usually recessive. The primary source of micro-evolution is epigenetic coding.. Three examples:

1. Tandem repeat sequences formerly said to be "junk DNA" by evolutionists. An example is the evolution of the Bull Terrier skul shape and dog snout in 40 years. This type of genetic variation is 100,000 times faster than point mutations on the DNA.

2. Methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin, formerly thought by evolutionists to be the inert backbone of the chromosome.

3. Methyl links to specific genes in the DNA that can turn genes on and off or express weakly or strongly. From our literature:

How Long Can You Live? — 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

"Living cells contain genetic information, which is needed for the production of new cells. Much of this information is found in the genome, a term that refers to all the DNA in a cell. In recent times, however, scientists have delved deeper into another array of mechanisms within the cell—the epigenome, a word that can mean “above the genome.” Epigenetics is the study of this amazing group of mechanisms and their chemical reactions.

The molecules that make up the epigenome look nothing like DNA. Whereas DNA resembles a twisted ladder, or double helix, the epigenome is essentially a system of chemical marks, or tags, that attach to DNA. What is the role of the epigenome? Like a conductor directing an orchestra, the epigenome directs the way genetic information in the DNA is expressed. The molecular tags turn sets of genes on or off in response to both the needs of the cell and environmental factors, such as diet, stress, and toxins. Recent discoveries involving the epigenome have caused a revolution in the biological sciences, one that links epigenetics with specific diseases and even aging."

 

[Newtonian]

You all- I am not responding on the fossil record in this thread. If any of you bump or link to a thread concerning the fossil record I will respond there. See OP.

Curious why no one has responded concerning the Peppered moth or the Galapagos finches?

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a Fact
God is a Theory

MIcro-evolution is a fact confirmed by actual scientific observation.

Macro-evolution is a theory without any observational evidence and is speculation.

Curious why you bring God into the picture?

Macro-Evolution is a FACT

Creatures evolved from simple organisms to more complex organisms.

That can’t be denied

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I love this forum. It cheers me up on a bad day.

 

[Hollie]

There are many transitional fossils.

Nothing that shows a transition. We have human fossils, but they just reflect different types of modern humans, a few thousand years old.

There are many transitional fossils. I gave you the data previously. The planet is greater than 6,000 years old, there was no biblical flood and human history is far older than a few thousand years.

It's too bad you're fact averse.

 

[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.

You are correct. I used that title because Darwin is linked to the theory of Evolution. Those of my religion (Jehovah's Witnesses) believe in creation and micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution.

Biological evolution means in the most simple way that you and the tree with the name George in your street - I hope there is a tree with the name George in your street - have a common ancestor. So you and this tree are somehow brothers. Or with other words: You are totally embedded in the creation of god - like George.

This is because of both Biblical and Scientific reasons. God (Jehovah) could have created plants and animals so they could evolve into each other - but he didn't.

Do you have a daughter? Who had created this daughter? You? Your wife? Or god? Your daughter is not you - she is not your wife - and she is not god, isn't it? It is a new being. So what is this new being? Creation? Evolution? Both?

All the Bible says is that plants and animals reproduce after their own kind. This is a good thing. If you want Petunias and plant Petunia seeds you get Petunia plants. Usually of the same variety - though the wild type may assert itself in future generations.

If you marry and want children, you will not get chimps. Another good thing!

Hmm ... it is for sure not a good idea a to try to make a "rosephant" by combining the genetic material of roses with the genetic material of an elephant. ...

Let me say it this way: I know a lot about evolution - and also about evolutionary epistemology. I know that evolution is a very real thing and the ideas in context evolution are often very important. For me personally exists not any problem between creation and evolution. But I understand your problems.

 

[Hollie]

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.

You are correct. I used that title because Darwin is linked to the theory of Evolution. Those of my religion (Jehovah's Witnesses) believe in creation and micro-evolution but reject macro-evolution. This is because of both Biblical and Scientific reasons. God (Jehovah) could have created plants and animals so they could evolve into each other - but he didn't.

All the Bible says is that plants and animals reproduce after their own kind. This is a good thing. If you want Petunias and plant Petunia seeds you get Petunia plants. Usually of the same variety - though the wild type may assert itself in future generations.

If you marry and want children, you will not get chimps. Another good thing!

Hollie - you posted in post 15:
"Different species do not exchange genetic information. One species evolves into another species by accumulating genetic mutations over many generations,..."

Actually, point mutations on DNA are not the primary source of micro-evolution - and mutations are 99% harmful and usually recessive. The primary source of micro-evolution is epigenetic coding.. Three examples:

1. Tandem repeat sequences formerly said to be "junk DNA" by evolutionists. An example is the evolution of the Bull Terrier skul shape and dog snout in 40 years. This type of genetic variation is 100,000 times faster than point mutations on the DNA.

2. Methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin, formerly thought by evolutionists to be the inert backbone of the chromosome.

3. Methyl links to specific genes in the DNA that can turn genes on and off or express weakly or strongly. From our literature:

How Long Can You Live? — 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

"Living cells contain genetic information, which is needed for the production of new cells. Much of this information is found in the genome, a term that refers to all the DNA in a cell. In recent times, however, scientists have delved deeper into another array of mechanisms within the cell—the epigenome, a word that can mean “above the genome.” Epigenetics is the study of this amazing group of mechanisms and their chemical reactions.

The molecules that make up the epigenome look nothing like DNA. Whereas DNA resembles a twisted ladder, or double helix, the epigenome is essentially a system of chemical marks, or tags, that attach to DNA. What is the role of the epigenome? Like a conductor directing an orchestra, the epigenome directs the way genetic information in the DNA is expressed. The molecular tags turn sets of genes on or off in response to both the needs of the cell and environmental factors, such as diet, stress, and toxins. Recent discoveries involving the epigenome have caused a revolution in the biological sciences, one that links epigenetics with specific diseases and even aging."

Yes, religionist literature will support religionist dogma. Isn't that the purpose? There's another variation on your theme promoted by the JW's and not surprisingly, that's also false.


Claim CB101.1:
Mutations are accidents, and things do not get built by accident.

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 102.
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 55.
Response:

1. There is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.
   
   Sometimes things do get built by accident. Many discoveries started out as accidents that people recognized uses for. Many other designs (accidental or not) have been selected against, that is, discarded. Design itself is an evolutionary process.
   
   
2. Experiments and genetic analysis show that mutations (plus selection) do account for new adaptations (Max 1999).

Links:
Max, Edward E. 1999. The evolution of improved fitness by random mutation plus selection. The Evolution of Improved Fitness

References:

1. Max, E. E. 1999. (see above)

 

[Hollie]

You all- I am not responding on the fossil record in this thread. If any of you bump or link to a thread concerning the fossil record I will respond there. See OP.

Curious why no one has responded concerning the Peppered moth or the Galapagos finches?

What is the JW's position regarding the denial of evolutionary processes surrounding the Peppered moth or the Galapagos finches?

Generations of peppered moths in Britain gradually darkened in response to the air pollution in the industrialized parts of the country. Researchers showed that the dark form of the moth predominated because their dark color provided camouflage as an adaptation to lessen predation by birds.

Darwin's work showed clear examples of finches gaining an advantage through adaption to their environment.

Nothing at all supernatural about living things adapting to their environments.

 

[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.

As is required with claims of creationists, I did a search and found no such English medical journal On Call. Is this something the creationists just made up?

Please provide the exact citation to this journal

 

[james bond]

Hundreds of millions of years of fossils records.

Fossils don't last that long and there are no transitional ones.

Dickinsonia is the name we gave the animal which left the eldest fossil of an animal on planet Earth. This fossil is 550 million years old.

Information about this lifeform: Dickinsonia - Wikipedia

The fossil being 550 million years old is wrong. It can only be a few thousand of years old. Nothing lasts that long.

 

[james bond]

Macro-Evolution is a FACT

Creatures evolved from simple organisms to more complex organisms.

That can’t be denied

We already talked about this. You do not know science.

Moreover, if it was a fact, then we both could use it.

We know this because no creature evolves from a simple organism to more complex organism. Thus, I can figure these things out while you can't.

We can't deny that you are a pinhead to believe whatever they tell you.

 

[james bond]

As is required with claims of creationists, I did a search and found no such English medical journal On Call. Is this something the creationists just made up?

Please provide the exact citation to this journal

BMJ. Are you too dumb to look it up? Of course you are.