Culture Darwinism News

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

Spread the love

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

Here:

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

52 Replies to “Once again another push for a national Darwin Day in the United States

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to: “Without Darwin’s contributions to science, philosophy and reason, our understanding of the world’s complexity and grandeur would be significantly diminished.”

    It is precisely because of Darwin’s influence that ‘science, philosophy and reason’ have been greatly diminished.

    Atheistic Materialism is simply completely incoherent as a philosophy. Much less does it provide a solid basis for reason and science. Even Charles Darwin himself reluctantly realized this fact a year before his death:

    Darwin’s Deeper Doubt: Horrid! – July 2013
    Excerpt: The year before Darwin died in 1882 he had his infamous “horrid doubt” about the reliability of evolved human mental capabilities.,,,

    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
    Charles Darwin
    http://blogs.christianpost.com.....rid-17211/

    “Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.”
    ~ Alvin Plantinga

    Can atheists trust their own minds? – William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k

    “The failure of evolutionary naturalism to provide a form of transcendent self-understanding that does not undermine our confidence in our natural faculties should not lead us to abandon the search for transcendent self-understanding. There is no reason to allow our confidence in the objective truth of our moral beliefs, or for that matter our confidence in the objective truth of our mathematical or scientific reasoning, to depend on whether this is consistent with the assumption that those capacities are the product of natural selection. Given how speculative evolutionary explanations of human mental faculties are, they seem too weak a ground for putting into question the most basic forms of thought. Our confidence in the truth of propositions that seem evident on reflection should not be shaken so easily (and, I would add, cannot be shaken on these sorts of grounds without a kind of false consciousness).”
    ~ Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos (2012) Oxford University Press

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
    —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.c.....oyne/?_r=0

    Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – Answers to Atheistic Materialism – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg

    The Atheist’s Guide to Intellectual Suicide – James N. Anderson PhD. – video
    https://vimeo.com/75897668

    Is Metaphysical Naturalism Viable? – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzS_CQnmoLQ

  2. 2
    wd400 says:

    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.

    What? How would you describe the reaction to Wade’s book by progressives and evolutionary biologists?

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    “At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    Charles Darwin – “The Descent of Man”, in a chapter called “The Races of Man.” (1874, p. 178).

    From Darwin To Hitler – Richard Weikart – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A

    The Biology of the Second Reich: Social Darwinism and the Origins of World War 1 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n900e80R30

    The Role Of Darwinism In Nazi Racial Thought – Richard Weikart – October 2013
    Excerpt: The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology.
    http://www.csustan.edu/history.....hought.pdf

    Recalling the Wannsee Conference – Michael Egnor – January 24, 2015
    Excerpt: Despite the evidence that Darwinism profoundly contributed to informing Nazism, Darwinists persist in denying the documented links between the Darwinian understanding of nature and man and the Nazi policies to take control of natural selection and breed a master race along explicitly Darwinian lines.
    SS General Heydrich was a key figure in the planning of the Holocaust, and was the leading voice at the Wannsee Conference. The argument that Darwinists have is not with modern critics of Darwinian anthropology, but with the Nazis themselves, who were clear about the Darwinian motivations for their policies.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92991.html

    Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism? – Richard Weikart -October 27, 2011
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....52331.html

    Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin’s Latest Biographer — and a Pretty Devastating One – David Klinghoffer – October 14, 2012
    Excerpt: “Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief,” were students of Darwin, ,,,
    Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection “to its logical conclusion.” “Leading Communists,” moreover, “from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung” considered evolution “essential to the self-respect of Communists. … Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power.”
    Even Stalin,, “had Darwin’s ‘struggle’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ in mind” when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,,
    ,,the “emotional stew” Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century’s genocides.,,,
    No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin “for millions of deaths.” But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin’s theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences — well, that’s obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein).
    There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65281.html

    How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World
    Rejection of Judeo-Christian values
    Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.
    “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).
    Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).
    http://www.gnmagazine.org/issu.....-world.htm

  4. 4
    awstar says:

    “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.”

    I doubt if the “Show Me” state would go for a Darwin Day.

    While a member of the U.S. House Committee on Naval Affairs, Vandiver attended an 1899 naval banquet in Philadelphia. In a speech there, he declared, “I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me.

  5. 5
    Piotr says:

    awstar,

    Other versions of the “Show-Me” legend place the slogan’s origin in the mining town of Leadville, Colorado. There, the phrase was first employed as a term of ridicule and reproach. A miner’s strike had been in progress for some time in the mid-1890s, and a number of miners from the lead districts of southwest Missouri had been imported to take the places of the strikers. The Joplin miners were unfamiliar with Colorado mining methods and required frequent instructions. Pit bosses began saying, “That man is from Missouri. You’ll have to show him.”

    http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/slogan.asp

  6. 6
    ppolish says:

    I can see Darwin Day as a Feast Day or a Holy Day, but not a National Holiday. A Thomas Edison Day would be a cool US holiday though.

  7. 7
    HD says:

    >“Without Darwin’s contributions to science, philosophy and reason, our understanding of the world’s complexity and grandeur would be significantly diminished.”

    As well as many other scientists before Darwin.

  8. 8
    Robert Byers says:

    Fine if they allow creationist week. lets say yEC , monday to thursday and ID friday to sunday.
    Darwin was about a hypothesis on origins. Nothing to do with reason.
    It was not reasoned.

  9. 9
    Blue_Savannah says:

    In light of the evidence against darwinism, one would think its supporters would want anonymity, not exposure…but then again, they do seem oblivious to the obvious.

  10. 10
    rvb8 says:

    ‘Honest Abe’ and Darwin share their birthday. Who has left the more lasting legacy? (Cue rascist, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin comments.)

    Outsude the USA ‘Darwin Day’ is already informally celebrated by many groups, universities, and individuals. And unlike Ken Ham and his efforts to con Kentucky law makers into state funded support for his strictly Christian ‘Ark Park’, it is celebrated without tax payer’s money. Myself and my friends drink beer and poke fun at non-existant competitor thoeries.

    In the great race for the survivability, and fecundidty of ideas, for their applicability, versatility, and rationality, the undoubted champion must be obvious: RM+NS=Ev, is majestic in its power, simplicity, and practicality.

    Happy Darwin Day.

  11. 11
    Joe says:

    Darwin lied to people when he argued against the strawman that is the fixity of species. He is a deceiver. Not only that natural selection, which includes mutations, has proven to be impotent. Darwin is the cause of our ignorance.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    rvb8,

    “In the great race for the survivability, and fecundidty of ideas,”

    Should not your atheistic/materialistic theory of origins be able to explain why we even have ideas in the first place before you claim to be in a ‘great race for the survivability, and fecundidty of ideas’?

    “The ultimate irony is that this philosophy implies that Darwinism itself is just another meme, competing in the infectivity sweepstakes by attaching itself to that seductive word “science.” Dawkins ceaselessly urges us to be rational, but he does so in the name of a philosophy that implies that no such thing as rationality exists because our thoughts are at the mercy of our genes and memes. The proper conclusion is that the Dawkins poor brain has been infected by the Darwin meme, a virus of the mind if ever there was one, and we wonder if he will ever be able to find the cure.”
    ~ Phillip Johnson

    Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True (Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism) – video
    Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
    Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs

    Quote: “In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage”
    Donald Hoffman PhD. – Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception – 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439

    “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
    —C.S. Lewis

    Self-refutation and the New Atheists: The Case of Jerry Coyne – Michael Egnor – September 12, 2013
    Excerpt: Their (the New Atheists) ideology is a morass of bizarre self-refuting claim. They assert that science is the only way to truth, yet take no note that scientism itself isn’t a scientific assertion. They assert a “skeptical” view that thoughts are only constructed artifacts of our neurological processing and have no sure contact with truth, ignoring the obvious inference that their skeptical assertion is thereby reduced to a constructed artifact with no sure contact with truth. They assert that Christianity has brought much immorality to the world, yet they deny the existence of objective morality. They assert that intelligent design is not testable, and (yet claim the counter proposition, that life is not designed, is testable).
    And they assert that we are determined entirely by our natural history and physical law and thereby have no free will, yet they assert this freely, claiming truth and personal exemption from determinism. Here is a case in point.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....76541.html

    The mathematical world – James Franklin – 7 April 2014
    Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,,
    James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
    http://aeon.co/magazine/world-.....-be-about/

    Alan Turing and Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video
    https://vimeo.com/92387854

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.”
    – Kurt Gödel

  13. 13
    Hangonasec says:

    Joe

    Darwin lied to people when he argued against the strawman that is the fixity of species.

    The fixity of species was indeed the prevailing view at the time, so not a strawman. It’s not clear what he is supposed to have lied about in addressing that viewpoint, though he may have advanced a theory you don’t personally buy.

    He is a deceiver. Not only that natural selection, which includes mutations, has proven to be impotent.

    Natural selection doesn’t include mutations, it acts on them, so …

    Darwin is the cause of our ignorance.

    I don’t think you can blame Darwin for that!

  14. 14
    Hangonasec says:

    Byers,

    Darwin was about a hypothesis on origins. Nothing to do with reason.
    It was not reasoned.

    No, of course not. It’s not like he set his argument down in book form, or anything like that.

  15. 15
    Joe says:

    Hangonasec:

    The fixity of species was indeed the prevailing view at the time, so not a strawman.

    That is incorrect as Linne, of Linnean classification, had put the Created Kind at the level of Genus meaning all current species evolved from them.

    Natural selection doesn’t include mutations, it acts on them, so …

    All textbooks and biologists say otherwise. For example Mayr, in “What Evolution Is” definitely states that mutations are part of natural selection. It is the first step- as he calls it.

    “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition

    “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley

    “Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:

    Variation

    Inheritance

    Fecundity

    which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University

    Natural selection includes mutations. Get an education.

  16. 16
    Hangonasec says:

    Joe

    That is incorrect as Linne, of Linnean classification, had put the Created Kind at the level of Genus meaning all current species evolved from them.

    Linne was not responsible for the entirety of the ‘prevailing view’. Go tell it to AiG

    Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view.

    Natural selection includes mutations. Get an education.

    Got one thanks, fridge man. You are wrong. Let’s play duelling authorities! Natural selection is any consistent difference in fitness among phenotypically different biological entities Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd Ed p349. Mutation is one potential cause of a phenotypic difference upon which Natural Selection can act, but is not part of the selection process, any more than getting dirty is part of the washing process. Without variation, you don’t get selection, but variation is not selection. Many mutations are neutral, and not subject to selection at all. It’s nonsensical to include them within it.

  17. 17
    Joe says:

    Hangonasec- Can you read? AiG agrees with me. And your reference doesn’t refute what I said about mutations being part of natural selection.

    I never said mutations/ variations are the selection. What is wrong with you?

    BTW Mayr is one of the architects of the modern synthesis. His word means more than Futuyma’s, who is a known fabricator.

    The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. -Ernst Mayr “What Evolution Is”

  18. 18
    Joe says:

    Natural selection is any consistent difference in fitness among phenotypically different biological entities

    Those differences come from what?

  19. 19
    Hangonasec says:

    Joe.

    Hangonasec- Can you read? AiG agrees with me.

    Agrees with you by saying the opposite? Cool.

    I never said mutations/ variations are the selection. What is wrong with you?

    I didn’t say you did. You said they are part of selection. (eta: more accurately, that “NS includes mutations”) They aren’t. They are one of the things on which selection acts.

    BTW Mayr is one of the architects of the modern synthesis. His word means more than Futuyma’s, who is a known fabricator.

    Ah, good. So you agree with Mayr about the reality of evolution, then.

    Natural selection is any consistent difference in fitness among phenotypically different biological entities

    Those differences come from what?

    From mutation (among other things – eg recombination). I think we’ve pretty much established that selection acts on variation.

  20. 20
    Joe says:

    AiG did NOT say the opposite. Obviously you cannot read.

    You said they are part of selection. (eta: more accurately, that “NS includes mutations”) They aren’t.

    Mayr and others say they are. Even your source agrees.

    So you agree with Mayr about the reality of evolution, then.

    Evolution isn’t being debated. Again your ignorance betrays you.

    From mutation (among other things – eg recombination). I think we’ve pretty much established that selection acts on variation.

    Natural selection is an eliminative process that doesn’t act on anything. BTW recombination is a form of mutation as it is a genetic change.

    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.

    Obviously you are just an insipid troll

  21. 21
    Joe says:

    The first step in selection, the production of genetic variation, is almost exclusively a chance phenomenon except that the nature of the changes at a given locus is strongly constrained. -Ernst Mayr “What Evolution Is”

    The production of genetic variation is the first step of natural selection.

    Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)

    Thanks for your honesty, Will.

  22. 22
    Joe says:

    Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.

    Do you know what a “false idea” is, Hangonasec?

  23. 23
    ppolish says:

    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.

  24. 24
    Joe says:

    How are you defining “fixity”, ppolish?

  25. 25
    Hangonasec says:

    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.

  26. 26
    Hangonasec says:

    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.

  27. 27
    Joe says:

    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??

  28. 28
    Hangonasec says:

    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??? 😀

    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?

  29. 29
    ppolish says:

    One example hangonasec? You’re kidding. Read the link supplied by BA77 in the first reply to this thread. http://www.uncommondescent.com.....economics/

  30. 30
    Joe says:

    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.

  31. 31
    Hangonasec says:

    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?

  32. 32
    Hangonasec says:

    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.

  33. 33
    Joe says:

    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.

  34. 34
    Zachriel says:

    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.

  35. 35
    Hangonasec says:

    ppolish,

    So, we’re into fossil evidence now? Presumably it’s irrelevant in all instances where it’s used to support change? 😀

    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 … ?

  36. 36
    Joe says:

    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. Strange

  37. 37
    Joe says:

    Zachriel:

    Fixity of species was a commonly held scientific position in the nineteenth century,

    That is false. See Linnaeus “Systema Naturae” 1758

  38. 38
    ppolish says:

    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_fossil

  39. 39
    Eric Anderson says:

    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.

  40. 40
    ppolish says:

    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.

  41. 41
    Hangonasec says:

    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.

  42. 42
    Mung says:

    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!

  43. 43
    Hangonasec says:

    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.

  44. 44
  45. 45
    Joe says:

    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.

  46. 46
    Joe says:

    Natural selection = (inheritance + random genetic change) + fecudity

  47. 47
    rvb8 says:

    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?

  48. 48
    Joe says:

    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.

  49. 49
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  50. 50
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

  51. 51
    Joe says:

    Silver Asiatic,

    It still amazes me that many evolutionists do not understand the position they try so hard to defend and support. Oh well…

  52. 52
    Silver Asiatic says:

    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.

Leave a Reply