Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

But they never mention the racism. Why not?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From a book excerpt at Salon, a mag you’d read if you believe you are smart despite evidence:

Over the next two decades Darwin revised the “Origin of Species” five times. Even in his final revision, he did not take the theory to its logical end; but he had already privately concluded that his principles of natural selection applied to the human race as well. “As soon as I had become . . . convinced that species were mutable productions,” he wrote in his later “Autobiography,” “I could not avoid the belief that man must come under the same law.” In 1871 he finally published “The Descent of Man,” an extension of his evolutionary principles to the human race.

The “Descent” brought the full implications of the “Origin of Species” into plain sight.

Charles Darwin had put biology on a collision course with the human race’s most cherished idea about itself: its uniqueness. “The question raised by Mr. Darwin as to the origin of the species,” one reviewer wrote, “marks the precise point at which the theological and scientific modes of thought come into contact. . . . We are brought face to face in this book with the difficult problems which previously had only revealed themselves more or less indistinctly on the dim horizon.”

Those difficult problems were now in plain sight—and would remain there.

Of course, they are too polite to mention that racism is then an inevitable component of Darwin’s theory.

Their formula must work.  The very people one would expect to be most exercised about racism want to declare a national Darwin Day in the United States.

Oh wait. Facts change when we rewrite them. Spin hard at work. Hmmm. Can’t help wondering how much of it is fuelled by tax dollars.

That is the part of Darwinism that bugs me most. The general lack of discussion of serious issues like that (though sometimes, indulged as amused piffle, of course).

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Mung: Well, you did say bacteria. And other than the archaea, what other prokaryotes did you have in mind? Z: There is evidence that eukaryotes evolved from an endosymbiotic relationship of primitive prokaryotes and proteobacteria and cyanobacteria. The host is usually posited to be a prokaryote, specifically an archaean. We're not completely convinced by Penny, but we'd be happy to modify our statement to be more general, consistent with Penny. Z: There is evidence that modern eukaryotes evolved from an endosymbiotic relationship of primitive protocells and proteobacteria and cyanobacteria. But we're glad you accept that modern cells evolved billions of years ago through natural mechanisms.Zachriel
June 15, 2015
June
06
Jun
15
15
2015
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PST
Zachriel: The term was prokaryotes, not necessarily bacteria. Well, you did say bacteria. And other than the archaea, what other prokaryotes did you have in mind? Wikipedia:
Prokaryotes can be divided into two domains, Archaea and Bacteria, with the remainder of species, called eukaryotes, in the third domain Eukaryota.
Zachriel: ... his citation suggests that the host was a proto-eukaryote. Proto-Eukaryote. That's one you forgot to mention in your original post telling us all how eukaryotes evolved. Zachriel: It is a difficult question to unravel, much of the evidence obscured by intervening evolution. Not really. Someone just had to look at the differences rather than the similarities and drop some prior assumptions.Mung
June 15, 2015
June
06
Jun
15
15
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PST
Virgil Cain: More like an idea, an untestable idea. Well, according to Mung, it has been tested, and his citation suggests that the host was a proto-eukaryote. It is a difficult question to unravel, much of the evidence obscured by intervening evolution.Zachriel
June 15, 2015
June
06
Jun
15
15
2015
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PST
Zachriel:
The most popular theory is an archaen host;
More like an idea, an untestable idea.
Glad you agree with Woese and Penny that cellular structures evolved billions of years ago through natural mechanisms.
Why would anyone agree to something so vague and untestable?Virgil Cain
June 14, 2015
June
06
Jun
14
14
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PST
Mung: On the contrary, there is evidence that eukaryotes did not evolve from bacteria. The term was prokaryotes, not necessarily bacteria. The most popular theory is an archaen host; however, it is possible mitochondrial endosymbiosis occurred after the eukaryotic stem had already diverged from the common ancestral community. Poole & Penny, Evaluating hypotheses for the origin of eukaryotes, BioEssays 2007: “Phylogenetic data fit best with the monophyly of the three domains, a common origin for eukaryotes and archaea, and acquisition of the endosymbiotic precursor of mitochondria early in eukaryote evolution by eukaryotic mechanisms of engulfment.” Glad you agree with Woese and Penny that cellular structures evolved billions of years ago through natural mechanisms.Zachriel
June 14, 2015
June
06
Jun
14
14
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PST
Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis by Change Tan and Jeffrey P. Tomkins on March 18, 2015 Abstract In the grand schema of evolution, a mythical prokaryote to eukaryote cellular transition allegedly gave rise to the diversity of eukaryotic life (eukaryogenesis). One of the key problems with this idea is the fact that the prokaryotic world itself is divided into two apparent domains (bacteria and archaea) and eukarya share similarities to both domains of prokaryotes while also exhibiting many major innovative features found in neither. In this article, we briefly review the current landscape of the controversy and show how the key molecular features surrounding DNA replication, transcription, and translation are fundamentally distinct in eukarya despite superficial similarities to prokaryotes, particularly archaea. These selected discontinuous molecular chasms highlight the impossibility for eukarya having evolved from archaea. In a separate paper, we will address alleged similarities between eukarya and bacteria. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-archaea-and-eukarya/ Information Processing Differences Between Bacteria and Eukarya—Implications for the Myth of Eukaryogenesis by Change Tan and Jeffrey P. Tomkins on March 25, 2015 Excerpt: In a previous report, we showed that a vast chasm exists between archaea and eukarya in regard to basic molecular machines involved in DNA replication, RNA transcription, and protein translation. The differences in information processing mechanisms and systems are even greater between bacteria and eukarya, which we elaborate upon in this report. Based on differences in lineage-specific essential gene sets and in the vital molecular machines between bacteria and eukarya, we continue to demonstrate that the same unbridgeable evolutionary chasms exist—further invalidating the myth of eukaryogenesis. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/microbiology/information-processing-differences-between-bacteria-and-eukarya/ Evolutionist’s Overreach on Eukaryote Evolution Fuels Journalistic Frenzy - May, 16, 2015 Excerpt: Ettema’s latest paper, makes the rather startling claim, that complex archaea “bridge the gap” between prokaryotes and eukaryotes and share a common ancestry with eukaryotes. That is quite a claim. What Ettema and co-workers discovered was an archaeal phylum they have named “Lokiarchaeota,”,,, But alas, and as usual, there was no such breakthrough. What in fact the evolutionists found was that using a highly select, prepared, refined and cleansed set of molecular sequence data, with computer algorithms whose logic assumes evolution is true to begin with, their new Lokiarchaeota species align with the eukaryotes. And so from an evolutionary perspective, there is an important evolutionary relationship with the eukaryotes. In all they found a whopping 3.3% of the Lokiarchaeota proteins to be similar to eukaryotic proteins. That leads the evolutionists to declare that today’s Lokiarchaeota shares a common ancestry with eukaryotes. From a scientific perspective that is not merely an unsupported conclusion, it is contradictory to a mountain of empirical evidence.,,, This is beyond absurd, and the evolutionist’s non-scientific truth claims have had the usual effect of fueling yellow journalism. One need look no further than the Washington Post, whose headline declares that: "Newly discovered “missing link” shows how humans could evolve from single-celled organisms" Shows how humans could evolve?,, This isn’t even wrong. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/05/evolutionists-overreach-on-eukaryote.htmlbornagain77
June 14, 2015
June
06
Jun
14
14
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PST
Zachriel:
Zachriel: There is evidence that eukaryotes evolved from an endosymbiotic relationship of primitive prokaryotes and proteobacteria and cyanobacteria.
On the contrary, there is evidence that eukaryotes did not evolve from bacteria.
Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.
This isn't even a novel idea, iirc. Independent Birth of OrganismsMung
June 14, 2015
June
06
Jun
14
14
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PST
Zachriel:
Like a river, while there’s no target, it does progress.
To the lowest point. So by your analogy evolution progresses to the lowest point. Sounds like bacteria will evolve into even more simple replicators.
For instance, if we look at the fossil record, we have single-celled organisms, the first multicellular organisms, then vertebrates, gnathostomes, tetrapods, amniotes, theropods, birds.
And evolutionism doesn't have a mechanism capable of explaining any of that. You lose.Virgil Cain
June 14, 2015
June
06
Jun
14
14
2015
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PST
Silver Asiatic: As I said, evolution offers no explanation as to why there’s a directional movement ‘toward a place’, or in other words towards something. Like a river, while there's no target, it does progress. For instance, if we look at the fossil record, we have single-celled organisms, the first multicellular organisms, then vertebrates, gnathostomes, tetrapods, amniotes, theropods, birds.Zachriel
June 14, 2015
June
06
Jun
14
14
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PST
Zachriel:
In other words, per Penny, endosymbiosis occurred after the eukaryote stem was already advanced.
Yet neither Penny nor Woese can scientifically explain the existence of eukaryotes via unguided processes. The problem is there isn't any way to scientifically test their claims.Virgil Cain
June 14, 2015
June
06
Jun
14
14
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PST
Zach
progress, movement toward a place.
As I said, evolution offers no explanation as to why there's a directional movement 'toward a place', or in other words towards something. To say, simply, 'that's what we see in the fossil record' is not an evolutionary explanation for why there appears to be progress in a direction. The environment is cyclical, it doesn't move in a direction. For something like a river, the progress is determined by the length of the slope. It has an end point. Gravity and the properties of water and the landscape determine the path. Stasis, convergent evolution and genetic drift argue against a directional movement also. So, as above, evolutionary theory does not give a reason why progress occurred or should be expected in the future.Silver Asiatic
June 14, 2015
June
06
Jun
14
14
2015
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PST
Silver Asiatic: The progression of water from sky, to mountain snow, to springs, to rivers, to the sea, to the sky, to mountain snow, to springs, to rivers …? The example provided was a river, not the water cycle. While no analogy is perfect, this one is more than sufficient to illustrate a common use of the word progress. Here's the relevant definition:
progress, movement toward a place.
Mung: It is now, and that’s my point. It wasn’t always that way. Woese appeared on the scene and things changed. The diagram you provided is labeled "A phylogenetic tree of living things, based on RNA data and proposed by Carl Woese, showing the separation of bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes." Per the diagram, eukaryotic rRNA and archaean rRNA are sister groups. Woese, On the evolution of cells, PNAS 2002: "There is evidence, good evidence, to suggest that the basic organization of the cell had not yet completed its evolution at the stage represented by the root of the universal tree." Furthermore, Woese found that the mitochondrion belonged to the alpha subdivision of prokaryotes (alphaproteobacteria). See Yang et al., Mitochondrial origins, PNAS 1985. Mung: Penny 2006, or Kurland et al., Genomics and the Irreducible Nature of Eukaryote Cells, Science 2006 Poole & Penny, Evaluating hypotheses for the origin of eukaryotes, BioEssays 2007: "Phylogenetic data fit best with the monophyly of the three domains, a common origin for eukaryotes and archaea, and acquisition of the endosymbiotic precursor of mitochondria early in eukaryote evolution by eukaryotic mechanisms of engulfment." In other words, per Penny, endosymbiosis occurred after the eukaryote stem was already advanced. Mung: Science marches on. Yes. Glad you agree with Woese and Penny that cellular structures evolved billions of years ago through natural mechanisms.Zachriel
June 14, 2015
June
06
Jun
14
14
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PST
Zach
Rivers flow to the sea.
The progression of water from sky, to mountain snow, to springs, to rivers, to the sea, to the sky, to mountain snow, to springs, to rivers ...? Not a good analogy. That's a cycle not progress. It's been about the same since water first existed on earth.Silver Asiatic
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PST
Zachriel: Of course there are differences, or they wouldn’t be separate domains. The differences are so significant that the hypothesis that any one of them arose from either of the other two must be rejected. Your position is not sustainable and is in need of modification. Science marches on. Zachriel: It’s a standard phylogenetic tree. It is now, and that's my point. It wasn't always that way. Woese appeared on the scene and things changed. Give it up Zachriel, you've got nothing. While you're at it, read the article linked to by VC in 75.Mung
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PST
The nodes of phylogenetic trees denote "something happened" events. :cool:Virgil Cain
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PST
Mung: There are significant differences in all three domains, so significant that the hypothesis that any one of them arose from either of the other two must be rejected. Of course there are differences, or they wouldn't be separate domains. Mung: Given the wiki image, which domains arose from which? According the diagram, Archaean rRNA branched from bacteria, then eukaryotic rRNA branched from archaea rRNA. Mung: Can you tell? It's a standard phylogenetic tree. http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=2793248_1745-6150-4-43-27&req=4Zachriel
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PST
Zachriel:
If by “look like”, you mean have molecular structures associated with bacteria, then yes.
Have some molecular structures that bacteria have. A some even posit that bacteria are spinoffs of those organelles- ie the organelles gave rise to the bacteria- Penny 2006
Not progress, as in better, but a progression, such as a river progresses towards the sea.
Not all rivers progress towards the sea but they all seek a lower point. Is that what you mean- evolution seeks the lowest point?Virgil Cain
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PST
Zachriel, There is much more to it than a simple "posit." There are significant differences in all three domains, so significant that the hypothesis that any one of them arose from either of the other two must be rejected. This is based on the actual evidence. This has nothing to do with endosymbiosis, so we can discard that as a red herring. Given the wiki image, which domains arose from which? Can you tell? Did the Archaea arise from the Bacteria?Mung
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PST
Mung: I’m talking about his view on the relationship between the three domains. That none of the three arose from any of the other two. Woese posits they arose from a hot common evolutionary cauldron, not as separate events. Mung: That none of the three arose from any of the other two. If Woese is right, then you are wrong. Woese's hypothesis doesn't preclude endosymbiosis, though it may relegate it to a secondary role. Mung: See the image in the wiki article. What about it?Zachriel
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PST
Zachriel, I am not talking about Woese's view on endosymbiosis, I'm talking about his view on the relationship between the three domains. That none of the three arose from any of the other two. If Woese is right, then you are wrong. See the image in the wiki article.Mung
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PST
Virgil Cain: The “evidence” just says that some organelles sort of look like bacteria. If by "look like", you mean have molecular structures associated with bacteria, then yes. Virgil Cain: Evolution doesn’t posit progress Not progress, as in better, but a progression, such as a river progresses towards the sea. Mung: Didn’t Woese show that this is a false view of the origin of eukaryotes? Your link doesn't seem to include the text you quoted. Woese's view is that the simple notion of endosymbiosis is oversimplistic, and that there was a primordial period of rampant horizontal exchange between archaea and the protoeukaryotes before life crossed what he terms the Darwinian Threshold.Zachriel
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PST
Yikes! Virgil Cain 3, Zachriel 0Querius
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PST
Zachriel: There is evidence that eukaryotes evolved from an endosymbiotic relationship of primitive prokaryotes and proteobacteria and cyanobacteria. Didn't Woese show that this is a false view of the origin of eukaryotes? Eukaryotes did not evolve from either the archaea or the bacteria. There is however evidence that "several key organelles of eukaryotes originated as a symbiosis."Mung
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PST
Zachriel:
The fossil evidence shows a progression over hundreds-of-millions of years
Evolution doesn't posit progressVirgil Cain
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PST
Zachriel:
There is evidence that eukaryotes evolved from an endosymbiotic relationship of primitive prokaryotes and proteobacteria and cyanobacteria.
The "evidence" just says that some organelles sort of look like bacteria. That means the evidence isn't scientific evidence as no one can actually test the claim. Nice try, though.Virgil Cain
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PST
Virgil Cain: Given starting populations of prokaryotes you can’t get beyond more populations of prokaryotes. There is evidence that eukaryotes evolved from an endosymbiotic relationship of primitive prokaryotes and proteobacteria and cyanobacteria. harry: For the progression to even begin ... The fossil evidence shows a progression over hundreds-of-millions of years — regardless of any explanatory theory — regardless of how life began. harry: A progression? Yes. Good. From the nest hierarchy of that progression, we can show common descent. Silver Asiatic: With a direction, we can predict the future. Progress and direction point to goals, and therefore purpose. Rivers flow to the sea.Zachriel
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PST
Evolutionary theory provides no reason why a progression would be required also. To conclude there is progress from a beginning is to indicate 'direction'. With a direction, we can predict the future. Progress and direction point to goals, and therefore purpose. Why would chemical compounds progress in a direction? What inanimate matter is progressing? Are clouds and rain the same today as they were 40 million years ago? Did they make progress? Did water molecules progress? Oxygen? Human beings understand progress very well. We try to make progress in knowledge and moral goodness. But we also understand this as moving in a direction, for a purpose. That's theism, design and teleology.Silver Asiatic
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PST
Zachriel @62, A progression? Yes. A mindless accident? No. For the progression to even begin, a single-celled, metabolizing, self-replicating unit, the required functional complexity of which the best minds of modern science still do not know how to build from scratch, had to somehow come about. Did dumb matter mindlessly and accidentally assemble itself into such nanotechnology? No. Could new features requiring even greater functional complexity be mindlessly and accidentally integrated with such functional complexity? No. A progression? Yes. A mindless accident? Ridiculous.harry
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PST
Zachriel, Your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of explaining the diversity of life. Given starting populations of prokaryotes you can't get beyond more populations of prokaryotes. You lose.Virgil Cain
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PST
harry: My thought was that that would be a case of confusing evidence that a genome allows for a wild variety within a given kind, with evidence for macro-evolution. The notion of "kind" is ill-defined, but if you look at equine fossils, they look like variations of the horse kind, the early fossils of which resemble the perissodactyla kind, the mammal kind, the amniote kind, the tetrapod kind. That's because when we look at early equines, they closely resemble the fossils of other early odd-toed ungulates. harry: If not for evidence like that, why would anybody use the fossil record at all as evidence for evolution? Because it shows an overall pattern of descent with modification. At one time there were only singled-celled organisms. Then there were simple multi-cellular animals, followed by the first vertebrates, gnathostomes, land vertebrates, amniotes, mammals, primates, hominids. That’s a progression.Zachriel
June 13, 2015
June
06
Jun
13
13
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PST
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply