Re: New Article at TalkReason: Creationists, Hitler and Evolution


nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I did a bit of checking of this article.

No, you didn't. You haven't read it yet.

It's almost all false. About
Lysenko/Michurin is false, it was actually the Darwinists who first
rejected genetics,

How could Darwin have rejected genetics when he did not know about
mendel's work? If you mean later evolutionary scientsts, they have
embraced genetics; it was the merger of Darwin's ideas on natural
selection combined with genetics that has produced the modern
synthesis. Genetics provided the *mechanism for inheritability and
variablity that Darwin's ideas needed.

this coincides much with the eclipse of Darwinism.

Ummm. What eclipse? It hit the ground running and has been picking up
speed. How can you creationists be an oppressed minority if
evolutionary science has eclipsed?

Lysenko and Michurin accepted natural selection,

Lysenko rejected natural selection as important; his false ideas
(supported by Stalin) led to the death of millions by starvation.
Reject reality at your peril!

but they wanted more
quick results to increase farming productivity, hence they focused on
other methods of inducing changes, some of which were actually valid.

Such as?


I downloaded Mein Kampf, a search on "entwicklung" turns up hits for
almost every chapter in the book. Most of these mentions of the word
appear to have nothing to do with evolution, but Hitler does talk about
natural selection in various contexts including evolution. In any case
the article suggested there was only 1 mention of "entwicklung", which
was blatantly false.

Could you please point to one or two exceptions?


I went to the Aryan nations website. In the about section it talks
about evolving themselves, and getting rid of the anti-evolutionary
religions. The article wrongly said that none of the websites mention
evolution as motivating their actions. I did not look at the other
websites

Well, no; they might contain information. It is, in some circles,
considered a waste of time going to a NeoNazi site for information.


For as far as the article's reconstruction of Nazism goes:

Of course there was massive impact of Darwinism on German
intellectuals, a flood of pseudobiological racism which was actively
supported and advocated by the science establishment.

Heaven forfend that you might actually go to real historians. I guess
they don't say what you want, however.


The main operational beliefs of Nazism are like:
<snip>

How could I trust you to get their description of themselves right when
you haven't read the article you criticised?


Some of the lessons Darwinists might learn from the holocaust is that
natural selection theory is indistinguishable from ideology.

They might, if they were insane. Ideology is not a testable scientific
model.


For one this is because of the struggle to survive part. No such
struggle exists, and in fact if such a struggle existed it would run
counter to natural selection. For instance: if organism A is better
adapted than organism B, but organism B "struggled harder" then
organism A, then the less fit won out against natural selection. So to
say all those "Darwinist" formulations of natural selection predicated
on a will to reproduce or survive, are false.

This is clear evidence that you haven't the foggiest idea how evolution
works. Here it goes; read slowly:

If A and B are the same species. and
If A is better adapted to the environment than B,
Then A is likely to have more babies than B.

Some of A's characteristics are inheritable, and A's babies are more
likely to have those adaptive traits than B's babies. Sometimes the
inheritable traits change (mutation).

That's it. That's 90% of it. You can't even get this much right. I
dispair for you, Mohammad. You are forever doomed to live your life in
anger and ignorance.

<snip word salad>

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Kermit

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Alternative Mechanisms of Evolution?
    ... natural selection is not confined to the evolution hypothesis ... Genetic mutations are considered to be the ... > "An organism that produced genetics that were most likely to survive ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Alternative Mechanisms of Evolution?
    ... natural selection is not confined to the evolution hypothesis ... > does not add any new information to the genetic code of the organism. ... > "An organism that produced genetics that were most likely to survive ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Alternative Mechanisms of Evolution?
    ... natural selection is not confined to the evolution hypothesis ... does not add any new information to the genetic code of the organism. ... "An organism that produced genetics that were most likely to survive ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: in re: Genetics and The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis
    ... You cannot counter sue because the only thing "attached" to Bill ... "evolution" remains mired at the same level it was 130 years ago, ... natural selection to explain how evolution might occur. ... During the first part of this century the incorporation of genetics ...
    (misc.invest.stocks)
  • Re: Darwinism causes people to stop loving each other
    ... Darwinists generally talk about events ... The Theory of Evolution is about how genes change and how their ... choices have nothing to do with natural selection ... survival context like all Darwinists do. ...
    (talk.origins)