Re: Solid Argument Against Evolution

Ray Martinez wrote:
snip


-
Howard: are Jim's crooked fingers beneficial or no?
I have already answered that question.
How? You have asserted that it was not "beneficial". But the
mutation certainly did not prevent his immediate ancestors from having
reproductive success.

Reproductive success was not and is not the criteria in which a
mutation is considered non-beneficial, is it Howard?

Reproductive success is the criteria to determine whether or not a trait is beneficial.


I would hazard to guess that, *in the current
environment*, such a minor deviation from the norm is pretty much
selectively neutral (a difference without significance).


Common sense says crooked fingers are not beneficial or neutral, but
detrimental, undesireable and a deformity. Do you agree, Howard?

"Common sense" is not "Whatever Ray thinks". Crooked fingers are neutral, as they don't offer any advantage, or disadvantage. They are not "undesirabable" or a deformity.



That may not have been the case in some other environments, where
having such a deviation from the wild type might have been seen as a
sign that the person was the Devil's spawn and good religious people
might let "God sort it out" after burning the little Devil-child as a
witch. That, of course, would be "intelligent design", with the head
of the Inquisition as the "intelligent designer", and NOT "natural
selection".


Bizarre comment explained by the fact that you are an Atheist.

This indicates you don't understand what Howard wrote. Howard is saying that in the past, someone with a different trait may have been seen as being in leauge with the devil, and killed. Right now, there is no such selectional pressure.




As I said, whether this mutation is "beneficial", "detrimental", or
"neutral" is not a matter for your _a priori_ preference for
"normality" (Hitler's eugenicists, the "intelligent designers" that
they were, also had a preference for what they regarded as "normal" or
"beneficial" as well).

Since Hitler was not the subject you are attempting to slander your
enemy (Creationism-ID) by false association.

Again, you seem to be missing Howard's point. You are calling a trait "detrimental" based only on personal and subjective reasons, just as eugenicists have done.

Hitler was an
evolutionist,

Not really, he didn't understand how evolution worked.

a white supremacist,

More correctly and Ayrian supremicist, much like those who claimed the Pyramids were built by super intelligent beings from Atlantis... (something you have claimed as well)

a Haeckelist,

What is a "Haeckelist"?

empowered by Darwin's
theory and its direct product: eugenics,

Eugenics is more a direct product of stock breeding, and the theory of evolution did not "empower" Hitler any more than the theory of gravity "empowered" him.

invented by Darwin's cousin

How is that relevant?

and of course, promoted by the chief architect of the genetical
theory, Professor of Eugenics Ronald Fisher.

Still Fisher's work on statistics hold up, no matter what mistakes Fisher made in other fields.

Darwin's son, Leonard,
told a London conference gathered on eugenics that his Father would
have approved of their agenda and goals ("Commonweal" magazine, cover
story, March 9, 2007).

Fine, but how is that relevant? It's Darwin's work, not his Son's claims that are relevant.



Modern evolution was born in Darwin's racist mind after he rejected
God as Creator:

Darwin never rejected God as creator, and he was not particularly racist. But even if your claims were correct, they still don't affect the fact that Darwin's work on evolution is supported by the evidence.


he then "noticed" that Fuegians and apes in the London
zoo looked similar (Edward Larson, "Evolution" 2004:66).

It was well known at the time that apes and humans were closely related. All humans resemble apes, Ray. That's because all humans are apes. You still haven't explained why you feel that one particular human population could not be transitional to the next species of human (if any).

Darwin became
convinced that the Jews had conspired to fool the world with a special
creation origin.

Where do you get that idea? And even if it were true, how does that affect the evidence that Darwin collected, and the massive amount of evidence gathered since Darwin's time?

Hitler took it a step further and thought they were
conspiring to rule the world and he, since we are just modified apes
and God does not exist, selected his enemies for extinction.

Hitler gave every indication that he thought he was doing God's will. Why would being a "modified ape" make it right to kill others? "Selecting" one's enemies for extinction is not part of evolutionary theory, and was done by despots long before Darwin ever existed.



How do you like a taste of your own association medicine done
correctly?

It's not a "taste" of anyone's "medicine". It's just your own pointless and baseless claims.




Differential reproductive success is an
empirical determination that can only be made after the fact in a
particular environment. I told you the metric used (and which
direction is considered "beneficial"): relative reproductive success
in a specified environment with statistically more reproductive
success being defined as 'beneficial'. You ignored that in favor of
your personal taste for what you regard as "normality". That is, you
substituted YOUR judgement for nature's, like the other "intelligent
designer's" of humanity.


How can "nature's judgement" be better that mine if the former has no
mind and ability to judge?

Because nature makes it's "choice" by physical properties of reality, not your own mistaken ideas and assumptions.


Of course, like I said, evolutionists provide the "intelligence" for
nature via sock puppet proxy,

How, exactly? This does not make any kind of sense.

which is exactly what you have done:
personified and spoken for nature.

Nature does whatever nature wants. No one needs to "speak for" or "personify" it.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Upright apes - A.Filler
    ... In the Video: ... humans show off their arm swinging. ... * How apes and humans carry their infants and children as they move. ... Video and Related Data Revolutionizes Human Evolution ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Updated AAH Definition
    ... evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape cousins and ... Hypothesis": it's a misnomer IMO: it's not about apes, but about Homo, it's ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Abdul-Bah=?ISO-8859-1?B?4Q==?= and evolution
    ... Bahá?í writings actually say about evolution one would ... So where did humans come from if they did not come from ... missing link is not a species to connect apes with humans at ... great error for a Darwinian theory of evolution is to assume ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Texas: Board Set to Vote on Challenge to Evolution
    ... Humans built the Great Pyramid. ... Apes did not. ... You really should study human evolution you know. ... That could actually reduce the human population below the viable ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is there a purpose to our existense
    ... > Neither the great apes or any other intelligent species of life can ... Evolution is based on the non-random impacts of random chance on ... than how it affects reproductive success. ... Your birth followed the instructions evolved into your parents genes. ...
    (talk.origins)