Re: Scientific American's Faulty Criticism of Expelled

This will be my last reply of the day. I will readily admit that I am
a brain damaged creationists. :) I have had two strokes and that has
left me with a poor memory, particularly short term, and an inability
to focus and concentrate and my brian tends to shut down mentally when
things get a bit complicated or multitasking is involved. I also have
constant pain in my neck and shoulders and left arm, which
occasionally become excruciating.


On Apr 21, 6:26 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:45 am, ur32212451 <ur32212...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 20, 10:26 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

ur32212451 wrote:

[deletions]

"1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to
eugenics and the Holocaust.

And rightly so, IMO. Darwinism strongly influenced the such people as
the German racist Ernst Haeckel:

Rightly selectively quoted? Do you have any idea what you just said?

Yes, I do.

Expelled selectively quoted Charles Darwin in order to connect his
ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust. And rightly so.

Translation for the Englishly challenged: Expelled's selective choice
of quotes from Darwin's writings rightly connected Darwin's ideas to
eugenics and the Holocaust.

Darwin did not invent natural selection ...

It's nice to meet an informed evolutionist.


... nor was he the first to recognize that massive amounts of death
occurred because natural selection occurred.

Yes, by the great flood and ensuing volcano activity, or as you may
put it, 'by many smaller floods etc,

Darwin was not the first person to recognize that
one could produce interesting variants of organisms by selective
breeding.

True

Darwin was not the first to recognize that organisms with
different phenotypes were removed by selection differentially.

Yes, Dominant alleles are determined by the environment. In a calm
environment having few preadators, a diversity of alleles could be
expressed, but under extreme environmental pressure, those alleles
most favorable to survival will be dominant in expression. A loss of
alleles from a population is considered to be a weakening of the
species ability to survive. e.g. the Chiuaua.


Darwin was not even the first person to use the phrase "survival of
the fittest" to try to describe these phenomena (and he did not
particularly like the phrase for precisely the same reasons that it is
not used as a description by any modern evolutionary biologist -- only
creationists use the phrase without qualification).

Let's not rewrite history HersheyH. Charles Darwin did not like the
phrase because Herbet Spencer coined that phrase and Alfred Russel
Wallace, co-founder of Darwin's Theory, wanted Darwin to drop his
Natural Selection in favor of 'Survival of the fittest'. Darwin wanted
all the credit for the theory to be his, and his close friends (Thomas
Huxley, Charles Lyell and one or two others) wanted to keep the
salesmanship and public relations of the Theory under their control.
About 12 years later, Charles Darwin saw that his theory had become
widely accepted and he felt more at ease with the use of 'survival of
the fittest'.

Survival of the Fittest was associated closely with Darwinism and
charles Darwin into the mid twentieth century. Population Genetics
adopted math based on genetic fitness values and claimed to be able to
determine rates of evolution of new traits spreading based upon the
mutations fitness value. then Karl Popper and other science
philosophers exposed the concept of Survival of the fittest as a
tautology. Lewontin, Roughgarden and Spiess followed up with papers in
the 1970's demonstrating that population genetics was bogus due to
the inability establish any fitness values. This is when efforts were
made to separate Darwin's name from 'Survival of the Fittest'.



Darwin was not the
first biologist to notice the appearance of variation within species.

It did not take a genius to notice that offspring were not exactly
like their parents.

Darwin's genius was recognizing that all of the above phenomena, *all*
of which were recognized as existing in nature by creationist
biologists (when that was not an oxymoron) before him, could lead to
speciation. And that could account for the observed

fossil record,

Yes, that creatures appear abruptly in the fossil record, remain
unchanged for the duration they are in the fossil, and they either
became instinct or are alive today. Thus the correct observation of
the fossil record is zero evolution over time. the fossil record
always looked like creation, and stills does today. Variation due to
expressing different existing alleles through adaption is well
established as operating under Mendellian Genetics. the non-
evolutionary princples of Mendellian Genetics.

embryology,

Yes, we now know that "Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny."

biogeography,

Yes, that fossils do not match the prediction of evolutionary biology,
thus the evolutionists conclude that vaste majority of fossils have
been washed away and forever lost, or are out of sequence due to land
movements or redistribution due to floods, that convergence is
everywhere, or they simply ignore out-of-sequnce fossils. the
explainatory power of evolution is indeed a modern marvel that
challenges the intellect.

and the detailed morphology of relationships
among existing organisms. Nowadays, we would note that it also
accounts for sequence differences, a possibility that Darwin could not
have envisioned.

So which *biological* phenomenon that Darwin described do you think
does not reflect the real world? Do you think that natural selection
does not occur? Do you think that *artificial* selection by an
intelligent agent cannot lead to changes in phenotype within a
species? Do you think that all phenotypes are equally fit and that
there is no differential reproductive success (differential
reproductive success is the more accurate replacement for 'survival of
the fittest')?

Of course I believe all those things. I like how a breeder tooks many
years to develope a dog, a super sniffer dog with an enhanced sense of
smell and not distractable. In fact most observed dog variation has
been brought about by Intelligent Design, by intelligently adding the
genes desired and removing traits that are undesired. This leads to
inferior dogs genetically because they are missing genes and the
process of elimination often uses inbreeding among small groups of
dogs that will fix dehibiitating mutations in the 'purebreed'.

I agree with Darwin contemporary Louis Aggasiz, that ife does not
consist of one common phylogentic tree, but of a forest of them. I
agree with the Bible that God made the first life by using wisdom to
impose on the laws of physics and chance and matter boundary
conditions. That he made each type of created kind according to their
seed. This is the best explanation for the world that we actually see.
that the world the evolutionists proclaim is only seen by them through
very special evolutionary glasses and a doctrine that prohibit the
dogmatists of the evolutionary human species from seeing otherwise.

If the above phenomena actually exist in the world, the Nazis already
had all they needed without having to involve Darwin at all. In fact,
the Nazis would have *preferred* that different races not be derived
from a *common* ancestor. And the Nazis were proponents of
*artificial* selection, a solution designed by "intelligent" agents
(namely the Nazis). That is, the Nazis fundamentally thought that
Darwinian evolution, which relied on *NATURAL* selection, was no
longer at work and that 'intelligently' designed animal breeding of
humans was needed to preserve (actually go back to) the pure race of
some mythical golden past.

Darwinian Evolution is a high motive ideology that was embraced by
leading German materialist thinkers, scientists, philosophers such as
Karl Marx, Ernst Haeckel, Friedrich Nietzsche, the leaders of the
early NAZI movement, Eichmann, Goering, Sanger, Goebels, and Hitler.
Hitler and the NAZI's wanted to evolve caucasians and the new humanity
into the Superman Aryan Race, and eliminate the inferior races : Jews,
Slavs, Poles, Ukrainians, etc. Hitler believed, after watching the
1936 Olympics, that negroes were strong and would make good slave
laborers for the Master Race. Charles Darwin may have been appalled
with Hitler had he seen this, but Darwin's Theory and stated views
clearly indicate this is how evolution progressively evolves toward
superior races and species, the weak die off because they can not
compete with their improved evolved cousins.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Definition of Randomness
    ... accomplished by natural selection? ... evolution" mean variation within species? ... apparently random non-predictable mutations in DNA. ... Darwin went on to say that if true, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Principle of Falsifiability
    ... > G-d, degrades Man and relegates him to the level of a rat, Darwin would ... > There is no such thing as gradual evolution, ... huge swathes of the fossil record in subduction zones, ... Demonstrate that the correlation of features x and y between two ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can any Darwinist in this Forum....
    ... are involved with evolution. ... equilibrium or the nature of the fossil record. ... It was in fact anticipated by Darwin, ... You quoted Gould's dissection of Darwin's insistance of gradualism ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question for Ray Martinez
    ... it's science that excludes supernatural explanations, not Darwin himself. ... Since all Atheists rabidly support ... but refused to either accept or reject the idea of evolution. ... It is nowhere said that Person B does not accept natural selection; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Birdbrain: From the Beagle to Buchenwald; the Trail of the Final
    ... I suspect that there is a connection between Darwin formulating ... natural selection and it's usefulness in preserving the purity of the ... and his comments relevant to evolution suggest that he did not ... humans and the most humanlike anthropoid apes. ...
    (talk.origins)