Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Coffee!! Darwin’s finches wait your answer

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In “Evolution Drives Many Plants and Animals to Be Bigger, Faster (ScienceDaily, Mar. 9, 2011), we learn:

For the vast majority of plants and animals, the ‘bigger is better’ view of evolution may not be far off the mark, says a new broad-scale study of natural selection. Organisms with bigger bodies or faster growth rates tend to live longer, mate more and produce more offspring, whether they are deer or damselflies, the authors report.

Researchers working at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center compiled and reviewed nearly 150 published estimates of natural selection, representing more than 100 species of birds, lizards, snakes, insects and plants. The results confirm that for most plants and animals, larger body size and earlier seasonal timing — such as earlier breeding, blooming or hatching — confer significant survival advantages.

“It’s a very widespread pattern,” said co-author Joel Kingsolver of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Hmmm. Various suggestions are offered, including

Another possibility is that environments simply change from one season to the next, such that the traits that confer the greatest advantage change over time. “In Darwin’s finches, for example, there are years where large-beaked birds have an advantage because large seeds are more abundant, and years where smaller-beaked birds do better because small seeds are more abundant,” Diamond said.

So, is it okay now to admit that Darwin’s finches are not evolving rapidly into new species, but rather one type or another is simply more likely to dominate, depending on the weather pattern?

Comments
Ba77
Do you think these atheistic psychopaths could have done what they did to their own populations without atheism in place to devalue human life in the first place??
Yes, because they were psychopaths. Do you think the Spanish could have possibly perpetrated mass genocide in the Americas without Christianity?paulmc
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Hey BA, I caught it. Just had a different angle on the situation is all. Sometimes people forget the whole "we don't need no stinkin' marriage" group. - SonfaroSonfaro
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
Sonfaro - the rate of divorce refers to the proportion of people who get divorced, not the total number. Fundamentalist Christians have a higher divorce rate than atheists (and a higher rate than Catholics). I am not painting a picture of those Christians as hypocrites or bad people. I am saying blaming atheism is not a straightforward proposition, and likewise Christianity is not a magic bullet for social problems.paulmc
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
Sonfaro, didn't you catch this; The Christian divorce rate myth (what you’ve heard is wrong) Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=34656 Perhaps you would appreciate this book Sonfaro,,, Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites...and Other Lies You've Been Told: A Sociologist Shatters Myths From the Secular and Christian Media http://www.amazon.com/Christians-Hate-Filled-Hypocrites-Other-Youve/dp/0764207466bornagain77
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
paulmc, sorry to jump back into the argument. Just a quick point and I'm out again. You say: -"The divorce rate is higher amongst fundamentalist christians than amongst atheists." a.) There are more 'fundamentalist' Christians than there are atheists. b.) quite a few atheist don't get married. "Social construct" and what not. If we're counting common law marriage deals where two people are living together for five years plus the curb for atheism would probably be much higher (don't have the stats in front of me. Could look 'em up if you want.) Alright, I'm quietly bowing out again. - SonfaroSonfaro
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Hi everyone. This is a very nice blog. Thanks for the opportunity to post here. paulmc, there is a major distinction between atheism and Christianity and that is that Christianity has at its core teachings against violence, murder, etc. Atheism does not. Atheism at best is perfectly neutral toward these. In Christianity, God created man in His image and God died for man, this means man is special. Each and every person has dignity which is automatically assigned to this person and cannot be taken away by anyone but God. Not even the Pope can legally do this. I know in the past sometimes this happened (defensive wars against Muslims, some Inquisitions which wanted to keep stability and peace by pretty nasty ways etc) but this was more of an exception than the rule and it is now something that most Catholics (and other Christians) condemn. Atheism by itself has no reason to condemn any behaviour except perhaps behaviour which supports religious views. So you will condemn Caritas which is helping non-Christian Japanese right now with the same fervour as you will condemn any medieval inquisitor. In fact atheism posits man as the giver of any moral law (if there is moral law). In this way man (e.g. Hitler or Lenin) can decide who lives or dies. A Jew or a Pole or a Kulak can be labeled an 'Untermensch' or an enemy of the state and become expendable. If Hitler or Lenin had set up their regimes according to Christian doctrine, they would have to do a lot of logical wrangling to explain away why they were not emulating Christ in being merciful, anti-violence and full of love/compassion when dealing with their fellow humans (of any nation). On the other hand an atheist Lenin or secular (and practically atheist) Hitler can disregard this old fashioned, sentimental Christianity and just go with any latest fad. Social experiments involving millions of people may be carried out, after all each person has no intrinsic value and there is no-one to punish you as long as you remain in power. Nothing in atheism can stop an atheist from doing bad things, but for a Christian to do bad things (such as murder people) he must be in contradiction with what Christ taught. One can then point this problem out to him and if he is sincere, he will have to abandon his ways or drop his Christianity. Thanks.Puragu
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
paulmc, the body count I cited is horrendous and reflects the reality of the evil man is capable of without God. Do you think these atheistic psychopaths could have done what they did to their own populations without atheism in place to devalue human life in the first place?? Perhaps you need to reflect on these numbers at the following site a bit!!!!,,, Your denialism and rationalizations just to defend the indefensible is pathetic!!! Think about it paulmc, The worse mass murder in the entire history of mankind was mass murder that was propagated not by war against another people, but in atheistic states murdering their very own people!!! Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/ Think about that paulmc!!! Murdering their VERY OWN PEOPLE!!!, and just how does the atheistic/materialistic/darwinistic belief system truly account for the value of one human life in the first place, since materialism renders value judgments merely subjective instead of objective??? Not to mention the transcendent values of truth and beauty are remdered subjective!!! Materialism simply cannot provide a absolute value for the value of man. Whereas in Christianity the value of one human life is seen as infinite for God Himself has redeemed mankind through His work of one human life on the cross. At least for all who will accept this priceless gift!!! You state something about the divorce rate being higher among conservative Christians? paulmc please don't believe anything that atheists tell you about Christianity! The Christian divorce rate myth (what you've heard is wrong) Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=34656 further notes; "Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites …and Other Lies You've Been Told," (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2010) 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.).bornagain77
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
In the same way that you argue that it is a "a compromised belief in God" that led Nazis to commit the holocaust, you should be able to recognise that it is a compromised version of Darwinism that could be twisted to support such an atrocity. I'm sure you would see any example of a horrendous act committed by a Christian as not reflecting Christian values, so not caused by Christianity. Yet for those horrendous acts caused by atheists or suspected atheists, you have no trouble pointing the finger at the cause - atheism! Your only defense of this is "the fact that man is basically evil by ‘nature’" which is a statement I not only disagree with but find quite disturbing. As it derives from Christian doctrine and is being used as a defense for Christianity as a source of good, it is more circular than it is compelling. Broadly. what you have outlined here is a case against totalitarianism run by psychopaths. Otherwise you have provided a transparently biased account of both Christianity and 'atheism'. Just a single example - you quote someone about divorce rates being linked to the loss of public school prayers. The divorce rate is higher amongst fundamentalist christians than amongst atheists.paulmc
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
paulmc, Removal Of Prayer From School in 1963 - The Devastating Effect On America - David Barton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6063727/ U.S. schools were the envy of the world not so long ago but now that reputation is slipping badly. The root cause for this decline in education is fairly straightforward and simple. The reason is because we have pretty much shut out THE TEACHER OF ALL WISDOM (God) from the classroom. Focus on education; The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped - David Barton http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930/ How did the removal of voluntary prayer from the schools of the United States affect our nation as a whole? That question has been answered in detail by a research company in Texas which has gathered and tabulated statistics from hundreds of sources relating to the rates of moral decline in America. Specialty Research Associates, under the direction of David Barton, has released a report entitled America: To Pray or Not to Pray which uses over 100 pages of graphs and statistical analysis to prove that crime, venereal disease, premarital se^x, illiteracy, suicide, drug use, public corruption, and other social ills began a dramatic increase after the Engel vs. Vitale Supreme Court decision was made in 1962 which banned school prayer. Prayer in schools prior to 1962 was utilized in school districts all over the U.S. in many varieties. Some teachers used extemporaneous prayers, simply expressing their thoughts and desires; others implemented structured prayers, such as the Lord's Prayer or the 23rd Psalm, or others approved by local school boards. New York students prayed each day: 'Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on Thee and beg Thy blessing over us, our parents, our teachers, and our nation.' It was this simple prayer which came under fire and went to the Supreme Court for the landmark decision. Says David Barton, 'It is impossible to know how many of the 39 million children were involved in daily verbal prayers, but most accounts indicate that a clear majority of the students voluntarily participated in daily school prayer. Is it possible that the prayers that were being offered by these children and their teachers across the nation actually had any measurable, tangible effect?' It was this question that led Barton to uncover the statistical proof that the removal of prayer did indeed take its toll on America. Below are just a few of the charts featured in Barton's report, with a brief explanation of each: Figure 1: The SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) is an academic test that measures the developed verbal and math reasoning of a student exiting from high school or some similar type of learning facility. The results of these tests are commonly used by colleges and universities to indicate the strength of a student's academic preparation and his potential for success on the college level. Figure 1 shows how drastically the actual knowledge of high school students began to drop at an accelerating rate after 1962. Barton notes in his report that the upturn in SAT scores since 1981 is due to the increase in private Christian educational facilities which began to flourish at that time. Statistics have proven that students from private Christian schools showed higher academic achievement and higher test scores. Figure 2: This graph shows the increase in s^exual activity in unmarried teen-age girls after the 1962 Supreme Court decision. It is evident from the figures provided that in the years previous to the removal of prayer the rates remained stable and relatively unchanged. In the post- prayer years the numbers immediately began to soar. The sudden increase on the graph appears as if a great restraining force had suddenly been removed. Figure 3: Unwed women 15-19 years of age showed a phenomenal increase in the rate of pregnancies after the School Prayer decision. Note that the figure jumps drastically after the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision which made abortion legal in the U.S. The United States now has the highest incidence of teen-age motherhood in any Western country. Figure 4: For the 15-19 and 20-24 age group, the rates of youth suicide remained relatively unchanged during the years from 1946 to the School Prayer decision in 1962. But in the years since, suicides among the same group have increased 253 percent, or an average of 10.5 percent per year. Figure 5: Stability in the family has also been affected since the 1962 decision. Divorce, single parent families, couples living together but not married, and adultery are areas of family breakdown which have experienced radical growth in recent years. In the graph above, the increase in single parent families (households with only a mother and children) are detailed. Note the dotted line at the bottom, which shows the rate of growth prior to the 1962 decision. Figure 6: Crime, productivity, and national morality had been on a fairly stable level prior to the 1962 decision, but that is no longer the case. It is obvious that such a quantity of students praying for their nation had a very positive effect on the course that this nation had taken. The rate of violent crime, as shown above, has risen over 330 percent. If you would like a copy of America: To Pray or Not to Pray?, send $7.95 to Specialty Research Associates, P.O. Box 397, Aledo, TX 76008. All of the figures and statistics compiled in this book are taken from data made available by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Center for Disease Control, Statistical Abstracts of the United States, Vital Statistics of the United States, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other official sources http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0124_When_America_stopped.html The following video is very suggestive to a 'spiritual' link in man's ability to learn new information in that the video shows that almost every, if not every,founder of each discipline of modern science was a devout Christian: Christianity Gave Birth To Science - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153bornagain77
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
paulmc, you state, ‘But, even if you honestly believe as BA77 does that Darwinism caused the holocaust,’ Actually what I believe primarily caused the Holocaust is the fact that man is basically evil by ‘nature’,,, And without God guiding our lives and society that evil is manifest in its most hideous form. Thus I believe a compromised belief in God brought on by the pseudo-science of Darwinism is the ‘sufficient cause’ for the holocaust. ,,, For example if we take a look at the atheistic countries, instead of just Hitler’s twisted paganism, we find the ‘evil’ manifest in man was much more extreme than even in Hitler’s ‘Darwinized Paganism’; Stalin's Brutal Faith http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Excerpt: Essentially a body count of communism's victims in the 20th century, the book draws heavily from recently opened Soviet archives. The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million, non-war related, deaths in the century. (of note: this estimate is viewed as very conservative by many, with some more realistic estimates passing 200 million dead) (Of Note: Atheistic Communism is defined as Dialectic Materialism) http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087 Study: Rising Religious Tide in China Overwhelms Atheist Doctrine Excerpt: One of the last great efforts at state-sponsored atheism is a failure. And not just any kind of failure. China has enforced its anti-religion policy through decades of repression, coercion and persecution, but the lack of success is spectacular, according to a major new study. No more than 15 percent of adults in the world's most populous country are "real atheists." 85 percent of the Chinese either hold some religious beliefs or practice some kind of religion, according to the Chinese Spiritual Life Survey. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/study-rising-religious-ti_b_811665.html Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions By David Berlinski - list of genocides by atheists http://books.google.com/books?id=Wlr6xOa64t4C&pg=PA23&dq=the+devil%27s+delusion+Tibet&hl=en&ei=1Jq1S_aSKofc8QTN3o3sAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false Atheist Atrocities Frightening Stats About Atheists - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1KpNEeRYU The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/ Lives Saved By Christianity Excerpt: here is an article, detailing how Christianity improved the status of women and saved millions of people in ancient Rome from death by female infanticide and from the plagues which periodically swept the Roman Empire: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-start/#comment-337994 Whereas the blessing visited upon man by Christianity has greatly outshined the evil that is inherent within man; From Josh McDowell, Evidence for Christianity, in giving examples of the influence of Jesus Christ cites many examples. Here are just a few: 1. Hospitals 2. Universities 3. Literacy and education for the masses 4. Representative government 5. Separation of political powers 6. Civil liberties 7. Abolition of slavery 8. Modern science 9. The elevation of the common man 10. High regard for human lifebornagain77
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
paulmc, you state, 'But, even if you honestly believe as BA77 does that Darwinism caused the holocaust,' Actually what I believe primarily caused the Holocaust is the fact that man is basically evil by 'nature',,, And without God guiding our lives and society that evil is manifest in its most hideous form. Thus I believe a compromised belief in God brought on by the pseudo-science of Darwinism is the 'sufficient cause' for the holocaust. ,,, For example if we take a look at the atheistic countries, instead of just Hitler's twisted paganism, we find the 'evil' manifest in man was much more extreme than even in Hitler's 'Darwinized Paganism'; Stalin's Brutal Faith http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Excerpt: Essentially a body count of communism's victims in the 20th century, the book draws heavily from recently opened Soviet archives. The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million, non-war related, deaths in the century. (of note: this estimate is viewed as very conservative by many, with some more realistic estimates passing 200 million dead) (Of Note: Atheistic Communism is defined as Dialectic Materialism) http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087 Study: Rising Religious Tide in China Overwhelms Atheist Doctrine Excerpt: One of the last great efforts at state-sponsored atheism is a failure. And not just any kind of failure. China has enforced its anti-religion policy through decades of repression, coercion and persecution, but the lack of success is spectacular, according to a major new study. No more than 15 percent of adults in the world's most populous country are "real atheists." 85 percent of the Chinese either hold some religious beliefs or practice some kind of religion, according to the Chinese Spiritual Life Survey. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/study-rising-religious-ti_b_811665.html Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions By David Berlinski - list of genocides by atheists http://books.google.com/books?id=Wlr6xOa64t4C&pg=PA23&dq=the+devil%27s+delusion+Tibet&hl=en&ei=1Jq1S_aSKofc8QTN3o3sAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false Atheist Atrocities Frightening Stats About Atheists - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1KpNEeRYU The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/ Lives Saved By Christianity Excerpt: here is an article, detailing how Christianity improved the status of women and saved millions of people in ancient Rome from death by female infanticide and from the plagues which periodically swept the Roman Empire: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-start/#comment-337994 From Josh McDowell, Evidence for Christianity, in giving examples of the influence of Jesus Christ cites many examples. Here are just a few: 1. Hospitals 2. Universities 3. Literacy and education for the masses 4. Representative government 5. Separation of political powers 6. Civil liberties 7. Abolition of slavery 8. Modern science 9. The elevation of the common man 10. High regard for human life notes; As we have seen, World War I broke out because of European thinkers, generals and administrators who saw warfare, bloodshed and suffering as a kind of ‘development’, and thought they were an unchanging ‘law of nature. ‘ The ideological root that dragged all of that generation to destruction was nothing else than Darwin’s concepts of the ’struggle for survival’ and ‘favored races’.,,, That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that many historians accept.,,, In short, there is an unbreakable link between the theory of evolution and communism. ,,, http://absolute-truth.net/2009/12/darwins-dark-legacy/#Abortion_and_Darwin.27s_theory I believe the body count for abortion is over 50 million now in America since it was legalized in 1973: Born Alive – Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen http://www.faithandfacts.com/abortion/born-alive-abortion-survivor-gianna-jessen/ The Dark Legacy Of Charles Darwin - 150 Years Later - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060594/bornagain77
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Sonfaro, Yeah I think I'm pretty happy with the *actually* brief summary that we basically agree on much of that stuff broadly although we could no doubt debate the details to death. Just to be clear I was not presupposing anything about your stance on homosexuality, just giving an example for argument's sake. So, good night!paulmc
March 19, 2011
March
03
Mar
19
19
2011
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
Hey again Paulmc, I'll try to keep this short. I NEEDS SLEEP. Still... You write: -"I really don’t want to start a big debate about this, but you could also invoke Christianity as much as Darwinism in the causes of the holocaust when looking at Hitler’s actual beliefs (and as you say at least part of the general anti-semitism). But my only real point was no matter how badly misused Darwinism might have been – it does not prove evolutionary theory to be wrong about the way life evolves." and I wrote: -"Just want to make it clear that there were a lot of factors involved in the Holocaust. Darwinian evolution among them. But people had a hatred for Jews long before Darwin showed up (unfortunately, some of them from a misinterperitation of biblical scripture). Darwins theory just gave ‘em a reason to go for it." I'm not sure theres a discrepancy(sp?) (maybe you weren't going for one it's late... meh) It feels like we pretty much said the same thing. Lots of factors made Hitler & Friends. (Though I'm pretty sure Hitler wasn't a Christian either. He was some weird proto mix of lies, naturalism, paganism, and pseudo-catholic mumbo-jumbo only a crazy person would make up. Quite of few of his head honchos were atheists, but again, that has no bearing on whether Darwin was right or wrong. It only means crazy people took it WAY too serious.) Also, you write: -"Officially the catholic church – representing two-thirds of all Christians – accept evolutionary theory (although I do realise many Catholics still personally disagree). And evolutionary biologists such as Ayala are Christian, with no reservations about evolutionary theory." and I write: -"One.) If by “evolution” you mean life changing over time via natural selection, then yeah, Christians can accept evolutionary theory. (heck, quite a few YEC’s are okay with life ‘evolving’ in a general sense.) The problem comes from things like random chance and a singular tree of life and what not." So... I think we're in agreement. Right? The catholic church can and does have an acceptance for much of Evolutionary theory. By its very stance though I'm pretty sure they don't believe in random chance happenstance or whatnot. As the 'New' Atheists love to mock, they tend to believe "Goddunnit". Otherwise we'd get the sort of "Christianity" that Dowd guy was pushing in that article a few pages back. (Shivers) Like I said, the problem comes when certain principles like random chance come into play, or - for my branch of the faith - a single tree of life (we think there are multiple trees that share branches everynow and again. "Everything to it's kind") And that's a 'Darwinian' evolutionary problem, not the overarching theory. On Homosexuality: I'm a theatre kid so I don't have to much of a problem with Lori liking Cindy or Mike and Stu making out on the couch (so long as I'm not dragged in). That said, just becase the animal kindom does something doesn't mean we should either. Lots of animals practice canibalism for instance (a grotesque example, sorry). Just saying "Look! They're doin' it" shouldn't be good enough exuse for us too. (Note: Sonfaro is NOT Homophobic *sigh*) As for the moral problem: When I mean objective morality I mean things like killing without a cause is objectively bad, as is sex by force not choice, or causing physical and mental damage willfully without purpose. Dr. Craig explains it better, I'm not a philosopher. I'm too sleepy to post it accurately. I can tomorrow I guess if we want to keep this going, but I feel like we've gotten SO far away from the original topic, so for now I'll leave it at that. Anyway, thanks for replying and clearing things up for me. Sorry for dragging you into a God debate. Hope this random post makes sense. (near delirious... must sleep...) ;-) - Sonfaro (That wasn't short at all *weeps*)Sonfaro
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
Just want to make it clear that there were a lot of factors involved in the Holocaust. Darwinian evolution among them.
I really don't want to start a big debate about this, but you could also invoke Christianity as much as Darwinism in the causes of the holocaust when looking at Hitler's actual beliefs (and as you say at least part of the general anti-semitism). But my only real point was no matter how badly misused Darwinism might have been - it does not prove evolutionary theory to be wrong about the way life evolves.
If by “evolution” you mean life changing over time via natural selection, then yeah, Christians can accept evolutionary theory.
Officially the catholic church - representing two-thirds of all Christians - accept evolutionary theory (although I do realise many Catholics still personally disagree). And evolutionary biologists such as Ayala are Christian, with no reservations about evolutionary theory.
Again. That objective morality thing.
I am not a philosopher of morality, many of my ideas are probably poorly developed. However, I would state that I am not wedded to the idea of universal and eternal moral truths. It appears to me that society derives the rules that are appropriate at any given time, and that these vary across time and between cultures in a way that suggests a lack of universality. Nonetheless, lots of those rules never really change, because they are always appropriate (murder e.g.). Even murder may not be a good example, as an acceptable response in some places to murder is another, socially sanctioned murder (i.e. the death penalty). Under Christianity, Jesus apparently had to be murdered to save us from our sins. This seems to be a contradictory requirement for our salvation if murder is universally wrong. Other moral rules are clearly more plastic again - for example, around sexuality. You may or may not argue, for example, that homosexuality is objectively wrong. For argument's sake, let's say you do object to homosexuality. I do not share that moral objection. My basis for defining homosexuality as being morally acceptable is an understanding that it is not a choice, that it hurts no one, that I don't find it personally abhorrent, that it has no negative impact on society. You could tell me you found the concept personally abhorrent, or that it is wrong according to the bible, or it was wrong biologically speaking. How do we resolve this conflict? The least satisfying attempt at a resolution for me would be an argument based around a universal law of morality that homosexuality is wrong. So being told that it is wrong because of the bible or because deep down we all know it's wrong, or because it just is - these would be the least convincing arguments, because I don't share any of those views - plus it is circular because it is based on the assumption that the bible is true or god is real. Homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom, implying a natural origin, even if it is a biological mistake or mixup of some sort. Whole cultures have accepted homosexual practices without a view that they are wrong. I think we would have to agree that it is morally relative (or we'd disagree and each believe the other to be wrong). In either case, I don't see the objective truth there. I have answered because you asked, but I was not trying to discuss morality or even God - only evolutionary theory, and more proximately 'junk' DNA :)paulmc
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT
Hey paulmc, Thanks for the reply. Forgive me if I skip over some of your response. Much of your post made sense, so I didn't feel the need to reply. However, I did want to speak on these things a bit. You say: -"Transitional DNA would be a worse term because it implies that it is on the way to becoming something. There is no evidence of that for the majority of the human genome." I guess that's a fair point. Thows things way to far our way I guess. Still, wish there were a better term though. -"There are also many Christians who accept evolutionary theory. But, even if you honestly believe as BA77 does that Darwinism caused the holocaust, it doesn’t make evolutionary theory an incorrect view of the world. I think there is power in recognising that the world of nature is a nasty one – a literally dog-eat-dog world, but that we have the capacity to rise about it with our intellect. That view could invoke God but it also doesn’t have to." Just want to make it clear that there were a lot of factors involved in the Holocaust. Darwinian evolution among them. But people had a hatred for Jews long before Darwin showed up (unfortunately, some of them from a misinterperitation of biblical scripture). Darwins theory just gave 'em a reason to go for it. Now, to the meat of your section here. Two things on this. One.) If by "evolution" you mean life changing over time via natural selection, then yeah, Christians can accept evolutionary theory. (heck, quite a few YEC's are okay with life 'evolving' in a general sense.) The problem comes from things like random chance and a singular tree of life and what not. Two.) There's that whole objective morality thing. Dr. Craig says it better than I can, but I'm sure you've heard it before and have some reasoning around it. -"Not having a God does not make me hate people or undervalue life. In fact, my world view makes me love life as I see it as all we have!" Again. That objective morality thing. Glad to see you're a nice guy though! ;-) -"I’d like to repeat at this point that it is valuable to make that distinction between evolutionary theory and Darwinism. Evolutionary theory includes modes of evolution such as neutral/nearly neutral evolution that Darwinism in the strict sense does not accommodate." Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. - SonfaroSonfaro
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
Hi Sonfaro ->
why not just say that ‘at this time these strands have no known function’ and leave it at that? That seems to be more honest. When one calls something ‘Junk’ one is saying that the thing serves no purpose. So when I hear ‘Junk DNA’ the image I get is that the DNA is useless, which isn’t necessarily the truth. You’re saying that some early Evolutionary theorists didn’t agree with that stance, but then why did it become so popular?
I think that is a fair point. In fact, when Ohno proposed the idea in 1972, he put scare quotes around the term. He didn't mean that it was literally junk, I believe he was being quite flippant. Certainly the phrase was not meant to be dishonest. I don't know why it stuck, but sometimes quite vivid and easy-to-remember phrases do, regardless of their accuracy. Quite a lot of evolutionary biologists agree that the word junk gives the wrong impression - but it is part of the landscape. As you say 'junk' isn't necessarily the truth - the corollary is that it could be the truth for much of the human genome. I would certainly warn against the stance of someone like BA77 who seems to dogmatically reject the possibility of junk.
Why not ‘transitional DNA’ or something?
Transitional DNA would be a worse term because it implies that it is on the way to becoming something. There is no evidence of that for the majority of the human genome.
but Junk DNA is kind of a prediction of Darwinian Evolution, right? And if you know us Christians (BA and myself atm) you know many of us ain’t to fond of the Charlie.
There are also many Christians who accept evolutionary theory. But, even if you honestly believe as BA77 does that Darwinism caused the holocaust, it doesn't make evolutionary theory an incorrect view of the world. I think there is power in recognising that the world of nature is a nasty one - a literally dog-eat-dog world, but that we have the capacity to rise about it with our intellect. That view could invoke God but it also doesn't have to. Not having a God does not make me hate people or undervalue life. In fact, my world view makes me love life as I see it as all we have! Anyway - that is besides the point. Back to "junk". 'Junk' DNA is more correctly a prediction of the 'nearly neutral' theory of molecular evolution. This theory states that amongst other things gene duplications could accumulate in relatively small populations - like mammals - because they are unable to purge them via purifying selection, which is weaker in small populations. Hence the duplications, even serving no purpose, are effectively 'neutral' to selection. The second component of the neutral theory that provides evidence for junk DNA is that purifying selection will be weaker in sequences that have no function. This means they will accumulate more changes than sequences that are functional (where many changes are negative and get purged). Thus, the elevated rate of sequence evolution in pseudogenes is interpreted as evidence for their lack of function and hence lack of evolutionary constraint. This idea goes against the stricter Darwinian interpretations of evolution that argue that non-functional sequences would not last in a population because they aren't positively selected for. A final point in favour of the interpretation of 'junk' in the genome relates to population size. Lynch (2007) has shown population size threshholds exist - populations larger than the threshhold do not accumulate DNA, populations smaller than the threshhold do. In this way, neutral evolution can contribute directly to complexity, by allowing pseudogenes to accumulate, some of which may occasionally acquire new functions - in theory at least. I'd like to repeat at this point that it is valuable to make that distinction between evolutionary theory and Darwinism. Evolutionary theory includes modes of evolution such as neutral/nearly neutral evolution that Darwinism in the strict sense does not accommodate.paulmc
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
paulmc, I would like to draw your attention to this comment I made on another thread earlier this evening, which you may find interesting for it 'scientifically' points to a 'higher dimension'; https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/we-will-if-you-will/#comment-374337bornagain77
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
Thus paulmc, the way the 'science' stands, which you claim you are on the side of, is that you have zero evidence of material processes producing any non-trivial information, much less do you have any examples of material processes producing any molecular machines, and yet you by what you write in your own posts are providing concrete evidence that intelligence can and does produce more functional information than can reasonably be expected from the material processes of the universe, over the entire history of the universe, with Planck time thrown in for good measure. On top of all this quantum mechanics has shown that the universe is actually Theistic in its foundation. And yet despite your extreme poverty of any substantiating evidence whatsoever, you maintain that all the diversity of life we see around us, in all its wonder and complexity, came about by purely material processes? But then when I point out that this is ludicrous and blatantly dishonest to the scientific evidence we have in hand, and that anyone who continues to deceive people despite this evidence lacks integrity, you have the nerve to be offended??? Excuse me if I shed no tears for your hurt feelings!bornagain77
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
Hey QuiteID, Well, yeah... I guess my question broils down to phrasing and popularity really (though I guess he answered to popularity thing). Why not 'transitional DNA' or something? *shrug* Also: -"(BTW, I don’t see why the junk DNA concept has anything to do with ID.)" I may have this deathly wrong, but Junk DNA is kind of a prediction of Darwinian Evolution, right? And if you know us Christians (BA and myself atm) you know many of us ain't to fond of the Charlie. We take pot-shots from time to time I guess. Has no bearing on ID overall though. Just our little corner of it. - SonfaroSonfaro
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
paulmc, do you believe that random variations filtered by natural selection produced undreamed of levels of integrated complexity in genomes that vastly exceed what man is capable of in his most sophisticated computer programs, though no one has ever seen purely material processes generate any functional prescriptive information whatsoever? If you disagree that purely material processes have never produced functional prescriptive information, please publish your experimental results in peer review so that you may collect 1 million dollars. "The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. The explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s). http://www.us.net/life/ The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8 ) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/media-mum-about-deranged-darwinist-gunman/#comment-363647 Systems biology: Untangling the protein web - July 2009 Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. "Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured," he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. "The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent," he says. "The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7253/full/460415a.html "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject." James Shapiro - Molecular Biologist Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For the Intelligent Design Inference - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651 the materialistic argument essentially appears to be like this: Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known. Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause. On the other hand, Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows: “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.”bornagain77
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
Sonfaro, I was intrigued by Paulmc's post as well, but I think he says more than your summary. Following the part you quote he writes, "Further, the genomic parts that have no known function and tend to evolve relatively fast reflect a lack of evolutionary constraint that implies they probably serve no current purpose." If this is true -- that there are parts that both have no known function and tend to evolve relatively fast -- then I think the conclusion holds. (BTW, I don't see why the junk DNA concept has anything to do with ID.)QuiteID
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
Hey Paulmc, Quick question before BA pops back in, as I'm curious about the whole concept of Junk DNA in general. You say: -"The concept of junk DNA is not (as your link there would have you believe) that no function can ever be found for the so-called junk, but that these stretches have no known function." If that is the case, why not just say that 'at this time these strands have no known function' and leave it at that? That seems to be more honest. When one calls something 'Junk' one is saying that the thing serves no purpose. So when I hear 'Junk DNA' the image I get is that the DNA is useless, which isn't necessarily the truth. You're saying that some early Evolutionary theorists didn't agree with that stance, but then why did it become so popular? (This is a genuine question, as I don't know the particulars). - SonfaroSonfaro
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
If my tone has become at all condescending it is because when I have tried to discuss scientific evidence you ignore it; you have linked my position on finch beaks and speciation to Hitler, infanticide and sucide; you keep accusing me of believing I am smarter than others; you have accused those who - as I do - side with science of lying; you've consistently shifted topics; and now finally you've started swearing a bit, in case there was any doubt about your civility (incidentally, violating the comment policy here). In other words, I think on blalance I've been quite tolerant and forgiving considering the tone coming from you. The thing is, I have no interest in deceiving anyone. I seek only the best understanding of the world I can. I am sorry that you find this so abhorrent.paulmc
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
paulmc, in your condescending tone you state; 'Sadly, you appear to consistently miss the distinction between ‘evolutionary theory’, ‘neo-Darwinism’ and ‘ultraDarwinism’.' Well paulmc, seeing as that all 3 of them try to deceive people into believing they descended from primordial slime by time and chance alone, (with 'political acceptance' of theistic evolutionists notwithstanding), and though one may take a more cerebral route through that deception to obfuscate the shere stupidity of it, what difference does it make to you? Are you somehow more impressed if someone rationalizes a lie to you with big words than small words???? Does it somehow make you smarter than others when it takes so much more bullshit to deceive you into believing your life is meaningless???bornagain77
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Sadly, you appear to consistently miss the distinction between 'evolutionary theory', 'neo-Darwinism' and 'ultraDarwinism'. I talked specifically about arguments that occurred at the time that the concept of junk DNA was proposed, involving the most Darwinian of thinkers. Most evolutionary biologists nowadays accept some degree of junk DNA exists - although I suspect there are still a few with a particularly hardlined functionalist approach who remain sceptical. Regardless, Francis Collins is not an ultraDarwinist. He has no reason to reject the existence of junk DNA. The concept of junk DNA is not (as your link there would have you believe) that no function can ever be found for the so-called junk, but that these stretches have no known function. Further, the genomic parts that have no known function and tend to evolve relatively fast reflect a lack of evolutionary constraint that implies they probably serve no current purpose. It is dogmatic in the face of such evidence to simply refuse to as much as entertain the possiblity that some DNA is junk. As far as I can tell, junk DNA wouldn't even necessarily be a problem for ID, provided you allow for some 'signal degradation'. Are those distinctions and lines of reasoning clear? There are regular discoveries of function in small sections of non-coding DNA, but the reality is we know of no purpose for a vast majority of the human genome. And, Francis Collins understands that.paulmc
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
Well paulmc, I glad you are so magnanimous as to inform me of my ignorance on junk-DNA and the neo-Darwinian connection, I'm duly noted and humbled but such a great man who has no doubt in his own brilliance. :) But if you could just get around to Francis Collins to inform him of his ignorance, I think you could have far greater effect in stopping this damnable heresy of junk-DNA and the neo-Darwinian connection that is spreading around; Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA – Wells, Meyer, Sternberg – video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.htmlbornagain77
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
It was always only a matter of time before the Hitler claims came rolling out. Anyways, I shall take this exchange as tacit acknowledgement that you are ignorant of the history of thought around 'junk' DNA, and are unaware of why the concept of 'junk' DNA was proposed or why ultraDarwinists were vehemently opposed to it.paulmc
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Shoot paulmc if you hate the obvious fact of neo-Darwinism forcing junk-DNA down everybody's throat, you are really going to hate this: From Darwin to Hitler - Richard Weikart - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A 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/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm ---------------- Amazingly, many leading evolutionists (Ayala in 2010; Francis Collins in 2010) still insist that most of the genome, which does not directly code for proteins, is useless 'Junk DNA'. Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - Wells, Meyer, Sternberg - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.html This irrational stance by them has severely hindered scientific progress: On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system. - Richard Sternberg Excerpt: It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12547679 As well it is now known that many of the hereditary diseases that afflict humans arise from the large 'Junk DNA' regions of the genome which do not directly code for proteins but which many evolutionists still tragically write off as 'Junk'. International HoloGenomics Society - "Junk DNA Diseases" Excerpt: A primary goal of IHGS is to elevate awareness of the fact that "some, if not all" hereditary diseases do not stop at the boundaries of "genes" http://www.junkdna.com/junkdna_diseases.html Excerpt: "elaborated in more detail in my “Obituary of Junk DNA “ http://www.junkdna.com/#obituary_of_junk_dna” uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes)." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-discovery-institute-needs-to-be-destroyed/#comment-357177 Some materialists have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA. This following site list several studies and quotes by leading evolutionists that expose their falsehood in denying the functionless Junk DNA predictions that were made by leading evolutionists: Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists http://docs.google.com/View?id=dc8z67wz_24c5f7czgm This following site tells of a fairly embarrassing exchange for three Darwinian professors who insisted Intron sequences in DNA were junk yet were contradicted by the evidence: Introns - The Fact-Free “Science” of Matheson, Hunt and Moran: Ridicule Instead of Reason, Authority Instead of Evidence - Jonathan Wells - June 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/the_factfree_science_of_mathes035521.htmlbornagain77
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
there are zero merits of neo-Darwinian theory to discuss. It is, without parallel, the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science!!! ...neo-Darwinism has contributed absolutely nothing to science
If you literally believe that neo-Darwinian theory has zero merit you are one who is being deceptive. That is an indefensible position. Incidentally, I sincerely doubt you actually understand the history of thought around 'junk' DNA because it was the strictest of Darwinists who ardently argued against the concept when it was proposed. I wonder if you understand why people argue that there is 'junk' DNA?paulmc
March 18, 2011
March
03
Mar
18
18
2011
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
paulmc, there are zero merits of neo-Darwinian theory to discuss. It is, without parallel, the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science!!! The most ardent supporters of neo-Darwinism are in fact the most deceptive people I have ever met. And are people who propagate their theory through all sorts of underhanded backstabbing, intimidation, censoring, elitism, and judicial fiat. That American biological science would be infiltrated by such men of low integrity at such key posts is a crying shame. And once again paulmc, neo-Darwinism has contributed absolutely nothing to science, and has in fact, considering just the junk DNA and vestigial organ fiasco, severely hampered progress of biological science! Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4028096 Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other?pseudosciences — astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience "A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00 EXPELLED - Starring Ben Stein - Part 1 of 10 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4 Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405bornagain77
March 17, 2011
March
03
Mar
17
17
2011
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply