Once again another push for a national Darwin Day in the United States

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 5, 2015

Culture, Darwinism, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A tax-funded public statutory holiday? They do keep trying.

This is the fourth year that the Darwin Day Resolution has been introduced, according to the AHA.

“Charles Darwin’s discoveries gave humankind a new, revolutionary way of thinking about the natural world and our place in it,” Himes said in a statement. “Without Darwin’s contributions to science, philosophy and reason, our understanding of the world’s complexity and grandeur would be significantly diminished.”

One would think that the problem of racism in Darwinian theory would be a bigger issue than it is.

But then one would think wrong.

If there is one thing I have learned about progressive causes over the years, it is this: They are strictly hierarchical. You can, for example, be a racist if you believe in Darwinism.

If you do not believe in Darwinism, you can be accused of racism on evidence-free claims. In other words, Darwinism trumps non-racism.

So maybe those people will get their public stat after all.

Stock up on canned goods and road salt. It’ll be February 12, and the stores will be closed.

– O’Leary for News

Comments

Joe - agreed. They try to claim that natural selection is like artificial selection, only that it's blind and unguided. But a blind process can't select anything. It can't choose options or 'purify' or 'refine' or 'optimize' anything. It just blindly retains mutations for the most immediate effect. It can't predict anything, and it's not even aware of what present conditions actually are, much less what future conditions will be.Silver Asiatic_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PST}

Silver Asiatic, It still amazes me that many evolutionists do not understand the position they try so hard to defend and support. Oh well...Joe_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PST}

Joe
Natural selection is impotent and doesn’t predict anything. Unguided evolution also doesn’t predict anything.
True. Certain mutations are retained and inherited but it cannot be known if these will help the organism be successful in future, unknown, environmental conditions. The process does not know how new mutations might cause conflict within the species or be affected by other competing species.Silver Asiatic_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PST}

The reason natural selection cannot select anything is because selection, or choice, requires some knowledge of the options available and some sense of a desired future result. Natural selection does not know what mutations are 'most beneficial to the survivability of the individual' since that would require knowing what future environmental conditions will be. Mutations are preserved and inherited, but not selected by anything.Silver Asiatic_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PST}

rvB8- Natural selection does NOT select. Ernst Mayr covered that in "What Evolution Is". My point, which I have supported using valid references, is that random mutation is part of the process of natural selection. Natural selection is impotent and doesn't predict anything. Unguided evolution also doesn't predict anything. Also Hangonasec has been shown to be wrong so it is strange that you would attempt to support it. AGAIN- natural selection is a RESULT, an output. The inputs are (inheritance + random mutation) + fecundity.Joe_{February 9, 2015
February
02
Feb
9
09
2015
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PST}

As Hangonasec clearly, and accurately explained to you Joe, NS works on mutation. It (Natural Selection), selects naturally, (without invisible persons)those random genetic mutations most beneficial to the survivability of the individual; kind of like being selfish, genetically. Of course NS weeds out failed mutations, which is the more likely kind of selection, but occasionally evoution hits the mother load, and one of those usually disasterous mutations is beneficial, leading to heretability and perhaps in time, speciation. Your theory predicts what exactly?rvb8_{February 8, 2015
February
02
Feb
8
08
2015
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PST}

Natural selection = (inheritance + random genetic change) + fecudityJoe_{February 7, 2015
February
02
Feb
7
07
2015
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PST}

Hangonasec:
Charles Darwin (remember him? He coined the term ‘Natural Selection’, not Ernst Mayr) thought that the variation input to his selection process was environmentally conditioned.
The modern synthesis supersedes Darwin, duh.
Natural selection occurs when it results in differential reproductive success.
That is incorrect as differential reproduction can occur for different reasons. It is only natural selection if the differential reproduction is due to heritable random, as in happenstance, mutations. Random mutation, fecundity and heritability are all inputs with natural selection being the result. And it is very simple for those with an education in biology. If you have differential reproduction due to heritable random mutations you have natural selection. Very simple indeed.Joe_{February 7, 2015
February
02
Feb
7
07
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST}

Darwin Day in America - trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm4WuWOatjs Website: http://www.darwindayinamerica.com/trailer/bornagain77_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PST}

ppolish
Evidence that destroys Darwin’s Null Hypothesis btw.
Nope, still not getting why anyone should care that some lineages exhibit signs of stasis, even if it were genetic as well as morphological. Which it isn't, on investigation. Scientific evidence is, as you say, awesome.Hangonasec_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PST}

I am all in favor of making "Darwin Day" a religious holiday and requiring it's observance in the United States by Federal statute. Fine and/or imprison the infidels!Mung_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PST}

Joe,
The sweet smell of desperation. Special Creation wouldn’t be natural selection, duh.
No, of course not. Just like mutation. Duh. Special Creation would be the source of variation. Natural Selection would still apply, as these independently sourced genomes duked it out in ... Nature!
I have no idea what separate origin refers to,
It refers to the hypothetical possibility that the competing genomes did not arise by mutation from a common ancestor, but were not 'Created' either.
environmental effects on phenotype are most likely due to built-in responses to environmental cues, so not natural selection.
How do you work that out? Charles Darwin (remember him? He coined the term 'Natural Selection', not Ernst Mayr) thought that the variation input to his selection process was environmentally conditioned. Lamarck thought so too. Neither of them had heard of a mutation. Regardless, phenotypic variation occurs for all manner of reasons not directly attributable to genetics. Natural selection occurs when it results in differential reproductive success. It really is very simple. Here's a primer, Joe. Variation, Selection & Time" That's three things.Hangonasec_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PST}

Thinking there would be a National Holiday in the US for Darwin is absurd, but the Atheist/Humanist/Secular celebration will continue for years to come. They will not go down without a fight. Red in tooth and claw indeed.ppolish_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PST}

Charles Darwin’s discoveries gave humankind a new, revolutionary way of thinking about the natural world and our place in it . . .
Yes. A way that has turned out to be utterly, spectacularly wrong. Nearly everything Darwin was right about is inconsequential. Nearly everything that was consequential he got wrong. It is hard to find much of anything in his original magnum opus that is not either incomplete, misguided, or flat-out wrong. Part of this is naturally due to the fact that he was dealing with 1800's science; no fault of his there. But part of it is due to the fact that he had an agenda -- one motivated by philosophical and religious views which led him astray. Having a Darwin Day would be absurd. It would be difficult to imagine anyone whose ideas have contributed more to the misdirection of an entire branch of science.Eric Anderson_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PST}

Thanks for giving me pond scum hangonasec. I'll add it to my collection of thousands of other fixity species. Scientific evidence is awesome. Evidence that destroys Darwin's Null Hypothesis btw. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossilppolish_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST}

Zachriel:
Fixity of species was a commonly held scientific position in the nineteenth century,
That is false. See Linnaeus "Systema Naturae" 1758Joe_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PST}

Hangonasec:
My reference does not support the inclusion of mutation with NS. Mutation provides raw materials for NS (and Drift).
Natural selection is a result. And your reference is pretty thin and mentions differences which arise via mutations. Also Mayr, being one of the architects of the modern synthesis, has more weight behind what he says. And I bet that Futuyma would agree with him.
And if you wanted to call recombination mutation, you could, but I see no point in lumping processes together that are clearly separate.
It isn't just me:
Mutations can involve the duplication of large sections of DNA, usually through genetic recombination.
Mutation is a change in the genetic sequence.
Other possible sources of selectable variation are Special Creation, Separate Origin, environmental effects on phenotype and Migration.
The sweet smell of desperation. Special Creation wouldn't be natural selection, duh. I have no idea what separate origin refers to, environmental effects on phenotype are most likely due to built-in responses to environmental cues, so not natural selection.
It is very common practice to list the main ‘forces’ of evolution separately as Mutation, Recombination, Migration, Selection and Drift.
So what? Once you have said "natural selection" the random mutation is included. Natural selection being the result of the three processes. That is the key. Differential reproduction via heritable random mutations = natural selection. That is how the modern synthesis has it and I am sure Doug would agree. If you have differential reproductive success due to something other than random mutations then it isn't natural selection. You can have differential reproduction do to sheer dumb luck-> that isn't NS. You quote-mine Futuyma and think it means something. StrangeJoe_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PST}

ppolish, So, we're into fossil evidence now? Presumably it's irrelevant in all instances where it's used to support change? :D OK, there's an example of apparent morphological stasis. Whether we would ascribe the term different 'species' to them is a moot point, of course, since we cannot actually compare genomes, and prokaryotes are notoriously indifferent to species concepts. But hey, I'll give you the blue-green algae. Let's say blue-green algae really are immutable. Therefore ... ?Hangonasec_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PST}

Hangonasec: Darwin was arguing against anybody who believed in the fixity of species. Fixity of species was a commonly held scientific position in the nineteenth century, including by Louis Agassiz and Georges Cuvier.Zachriel_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PST}

Hangonasec:
Darwin was arguing against anybody who believed in the fixity of species.
Darwin should have argued against the scientific position. His argument was a strawman wrt the scientific position of Creation. And he made it seem as if all opponents argued for the fixity of species.Joe_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PST}

The scientific notion was not of the fixity of species. That means Darwin argued against a strawman Darwin was arguing against anybody who believed in the fixity of species. If that was their actual argument, it cannot have been a strawman.Hangonasec_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PST}

Mutations are part of the processes that make up natural selection. I have provided several valid references that confirm that fact. You have provided another which also confirms it.
My reference does not support the inclusion of mutation with NS. Mutation provides raw materials for NS (and Drift). We are hardly in dispute over that. And if you wanted to call recombination mutation, you could, but I see no point in lumping processes together that are clearly separate. Other possible sources of selectable variation are Special Creation, Separate Origin, environmental effects on phenotype and Migration. Would you say that selection 'includes' those too? It is very common practice to list the main 'forces' of evolution separately as Mutation, Recombination, Migration, Selection and Drift. There is an argument, with some merit, that the latter 2 should be combined, but including mutation with NS is just nonsensical. Mutation is nothing to do with fitness per se; NS is all about fitness - differential reproductive success. I'm certainly not obliged to follow any given expert's opinion, given that I have one of my own.
[...] Thanks for the honesty Will
. Rather fond of that quote and payoff, arent you?Hangonasec_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PST}

Hangonasec:
You’ve been arguing against strawmen for years, and you still don’t know what they are???
What strawman have I been arguing against? Wiki: “A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument.” Exactly! The scientific notion was not of the fixity of species. That means Darwin argued against a strawman. ppolish hasn't said what "fixity" means.Joe_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PST}

One example hangonasec? You're kidding. Read the link supplied by BA77 in the first reply to this thread. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/why-does-defending-darwin-increasingly-remind-one-of-defending-communist-economics/ppolish_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PST}

When someone argues against a false idea that person isn’t arguing against a strawman? Really??
Really. You've been arguing against strawmen for years, and you still don't know what they are??? :D Wiki: "A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument." If the argument of certain people really was that species are fixed, to argue against it cannot be to argue against a strawman version of it! That was their actual argument, not a misrepresentation. Let's see if ppolish is making that actual argument too, shall we?Hangonasec_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PST}

Do you know what a strawman is?
Yes, Darwin argued against a strawman, ie he argued against a false idea.
They aren’t one and the same thing.
When someone argues against a false idea that person isn't arguing against a strawman? Really??Joe_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PST}

ppolish:
Plenty of evidence for fixity, hangonasec. Thousands and thousands of examples. Don’t be afraid of scientific evidence. Although maybe you SHOULD be afraid. Be afraid.
Have you got an actual example? One will do. I don't just mean 'name a species', or 'name a species whose offspring are the same species', but name an immutable species. With some of that evidence, better yet.Hangonasec_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PST}

Do you know what a “false idea” is, Hangonasec?
Sure. Do you know what a strawman is? They aren't one and the same thing.Hangonasec_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PST}

How are you defining "fixity", ppolish?Joe_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PST}

Plenty of evidence for fixity, hangonasec. Thousands and thousands of examples. Don't be afraid of scientific evidence. Although maybe you SHOULD be afraid. Be afraid.ppolish_{February 6, 2015
February
02
Feb
6
06
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PST}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply