Re: Scientific American's Faulty Criticism of Expelled

On Apr 21, 8:47 pm, ur32212451 <ur32212...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

Actually, for fossils this is demonstrably false. In paleontology
there are "lumpers" and "splitters" precisely because individual
fossils taken from different geological layers (separated by at least
10,000 years, typically) do differ from one another. The problem lies
in deciding whether these differences are different enough to classify
the two fossils as different species when all one has to go on is the
differences retained in fossilized bone (and often not even a complete
skeleton). Some paleontologists make the dividing line here. Some
make it there. There is support for both in modern species, with some
species that clearly meet the biological species definition of being
completely reproductively isolated, yet, if only bones were available,
would be "lumped" together as the same species. And other examples of
clearly the same species in which members are so variable that if one
only had the extreme bones to go by, they would be classified as
different species. There are even differences between fossils that
are early modern H. sapiens and current H. sapiens.

Thus the correct observation of
the fossil record is zero evolution over time. the fossil record
always looked like creation, and stills does today.

And this avoids the real problem. The record does NOT look like all
the species were created at one time. Rather there is a geological
distribution that makes sense as a branching tree.

Variation due to
expressing different existing alleles through adaption is well
established as operating under Mendellian Genetics. the non-
evolutionary princples of Mendellian Genetics.

Perhaps the Mendelian genetics of the 1910s and 1920s. But not since
the 1930s.

embryology,

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

I was speaking of VonBaer's (a creationist biologist, btw, when that
was not an oxymoron) ideas, which is what Darwin used.

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.

Nope. That is not what biogeography is about. It is about the fact
that all the finches on the Galapagos are derived from South American
species rather than being magically poofed into existence in situ.

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'.

Which, of course, is an identifying feature of *artificial* (or, as
you point out, 'intelligently' designed animal breeding. BTW,
eugenics is also 'intelligently' designed animal breeding.)
selection: The 'designed' organism is designed for the purposes of
the designer rather than for the good of the organism. BTW, Hitler
was practicing 'intelligently' designed animal breeding, was he not?
That is why I put 'intelligent' in quotes. Darwin was talking about
'non-intelligently' designed selection that adapts organisms to their
benefit.

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: Darwin the dunce founder? of modern evolution
    ... Islands, but that figure had dropped in modern times to 13 species, 3 ... a rapid increase in long beak finches over just a two to three year ... 'evolution' alive. ... Darwin and his pro-evolution anti-Bible mentors ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can there be a mathematical proof of evolution?
    ... Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. ... Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series. ... and the prediction turned out to be correct. ... In "The Origin Of Species", ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin the dunce founder? of modern evolution
    ... >>> It was once claimed by evolutionists that the Finches found on the ... They once claimed up to 31 species of finch lived on those ... >'evolution' alive. ... Several people did propose natural selection before Darwin, but to the best of my knowledge Lyell was not one of them. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Question for Serious Sam: How do new species form?
    ... If evolution is not responsible for the appearance of new species, ... fossils and whale fossils in the same strata. ... The point I want to make is that the stratigraphic record shows that the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fossil record resembles Creation, Not Large Scale Evolution
    ... and all species have come into being in this way. ... that's instantaneous in terms of the fossil record. ... In the first edition of his 'Origin of the Species', Darwin estimated ... to see it in the fossil record if such broad-scale evolution is true. ...
    (talk.origins)