Customer Discussions > Science forum

The fallacy of Darwinism and the evil associated


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 9:05:32 AM PDT
A customer says:
Thank you, Charles.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 9:47:10 AM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
<<Well, theology certainly contributes to the survival of the specious.>>

keyboard ruined, coffee everywhere, etc. you win the thread, sir.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 9:55:45 AM PDT
A customer says:
We aim to please!

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 9:56:47 AM PDT
the sign in the mensroom said

we aim to please
will you aim too, please !

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 10:17:44 AM PDT
noman says:
Detailed Record

RE: "Rev. Otter says:
<<Well, theology certainly contributes to the survival of the specious.>>

keyboard ruined, coffee everywhere, etc. you win the thread, sir. "

**Unsure of how the relation between "theology" & "religion" may affect this topic. However, the following may be of interest:

The evolutionary origins of religious behavior.
Authors:
DOW, JAMES W.
Source:
Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental & Neuro Sciences; Dec2010, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p48-49, 2p
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
*PSYCHOLOGY & religion
*HUMAN behavior
*BRAIN -- Physiology
*EVOLUTION (Biology)
*PSYCHOLOGY, Religious
Abstract:
The author comments on the failure of human psychology to explain how religious behavior was selected. He says that human psychology resulted from the human brain evolution. He adds that religious behavior is chosen through social selection, wherein genes act on each other beyond the individual. He concludes that the mystery of religion can be solved with the help of more sophisticated theories compared to those proposed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin.
Author Affiliations:
1Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, Oakland University (USA)

****
Evolution: survival of the selfless.
Authors:
Wilson, David Sloan
Wilson, Edward O.
Source:
New Scientist; 11/3/2007, Vol. 196 Issue 2628, p42-46, 5p
Document Type:
Article
Subject Terms:
*REPRINTS (Publications)
*ALTRUISM
*SELFISHNESS
*EVOLUTION
*SOCIAL problems
People:
DARWIN, Charles, 1809-1882
Abstract:
The article presents a reprint of the article "Evolution: survival of the selfless," by David Sloan and Edward O. Wilson, which appeared in the December issue of "The Quarterly Review of Biology." It discusses the insight of Charles Darwin that altruism plays an important role in solving problems of social life. According to Darwin, groups containing mostly altruist have a decisive advantage over groups containing mostly of selfish individuals.
****

**Speaking off the cuff and so far outside my field that I can see the heat death of the previous universe from my kitchen window.. I *think* that part of the problem in discussing religion, god, theology, etc. in a science forum is that the *way* terminology is used and defined is very different across these fields and the basic thought processes may be at odds. Very broadly speaking, a scientist listening to a violin would be interested in analyzing the mathematical relationship between chords, quantifying wave lengths and constructing a theory to relate change in pitch with string length while a composer would be interested in creating music. While these are not mutually exclusive ( music, math and science seem to be intimately related) they are not identical and I think trying to *force* congruency in all aspects inevitably produces conflict.

Posted on May 29, 2012 10:35:29 AM PDT
Tero says:
J.Steger et al: whomper does not believe in mutation or nat selection. He believes animals look different because genes are expressed differently in different situations

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 10:56:48 AM PDT
reply to Tero's post:

i believe in mutation
and survival of the fittest

but it does not mean that species evolve to higher levels of intelligence and complexity

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 11:33:09 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012 1:55:03 PM PDT
whomper--I am short on time right now. Of course, we don't know everything about DNA, but we know a LOT. If I understand you correctly, you are flirting with becoming an evolutionist!

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 1:34:03 PM PDT
reply to James G. Christenson's post:

i am flirting with being an intelligent design creationist

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 2:35:54 PM PDT
Tero says:
Microevolution is just evolution in a short time frame. They are the same, unless you use Young Earth limits.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 3:00:57 PM PDT
macro evolution cannot happen

Posted on May 29, 2012 3:09:05 PM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
i put our resident flooder on ignore due to blatant misogyny posted on the Politics forum, so someone give me a heads-up in case he says something inadvertently hilarious.

thanks in advance. :)

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 3:10:47 PM PDT
reply to Rev. Otter's post:

misogyny ?

pure misanthropy !!

the evolution emperor is naked

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 3:19:12 PM PDT
Spinoza says:
Tero says:

J.Steger et al: whomper does not believe in mutation or nat selection. He believes animals look different because genes are expressed differently in different situations

Spinoza says:

Does whomper understand this is Lamarckism, and that it has been thoroughly discredited for well over 150 years, and that no evolutionary biologist worth the name believes this any more?

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 4:06:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 29, 2012 5:47:34 PM PDT
Tero says:
Then micro can't either. They are the same thing. There is really no such thing as a species. It is just a branch that does not change much.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 4:19:13 PM PDT
I don't know what whomper believes (yes, Lamarckism is silly), but epigenetics is not a dead field.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 4:21:58 PM PDT
Spinoza says:
N. Hunt says:

I don't know what whomper believes (yes, Lamarckism is silly), but epigenetics is not a dead field.

Spinoza says:

Very true, but I doubt whomper is discussing epigenetics.

In reply to an earlier post on May 29, 2012 4:55:36 PM PDT
whomper--"it is more proabable that the dna includes timers and conditional things based on the environment that trigger changes"

>>JGC: Those would be genetic control elements. They are known to exist and their mechanisms are well understood in many cases. I'm not sure that any of them could accurately be described as "timers", but certainly the genes involved in embryonic development, for example, seem to be exquisitely timed, although they are in reality responding to biochemical signals.

But I think you are making major progress if you concede that there is genetic variation within the genome that can be affected by the environment. That's why I said earlier that you are flirting with "evolutionism."

I do not think that Darwin ever used the word "random". I'm not sure the word had been applied to statistics at the time. He does talk about "chance". There is a passage where he says that variation may not really be due to chance, but since we do not know the underlying mechanism, we assume it to be chance until we have a better explanation. Of course, Darwin did not even know what we consider to be the basics of genetics, let alone DNA.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 12:18:32 AM PDT
A customer says:
whomper - "but it does not mean that species evolve to higher levels of intelligence and complexity"

Actually, yes, it does and it must. Mere unbiased variation will lead to the range of intelligence and complexity expanding at both ends until they encounter some limit, if there is one.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 12:27:54 AM PDT
A customer says:
It's not epigenetics, but it is well worth investigating the Hox developmental gene set and the way development is regulated. This developmental toolkit has NOT, in fact, evolved substantially since vertebrates and annelids split. All the segmented animal forms from worms to snakes to caterpillars use the same set of Hox genes arranged in the same way - front to back, oddly. They are regulated by control sequences, which HAVE evolved.

So in a way whomper is right, in that the 12 developmental genes are expressed differently under different circumstances. And in another absolutely wrong, as the evolution of worms, snakes and caterpillars from a common ancestor could all be achieved merely by tinkering with regulatory sequences, without changing the developmental toolkit. There are no developmental barriers, in other words, to fundamerntally distinguish any of these organisms.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 5:31:14 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Logical fallacy, whomper.

The truth is what is supported by evidence. Denial of the evidence leads to error; claims based on that denial are automatically false.

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 7:00:28 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 7:01:41 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 30, 2012 7:05:34 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Biologists, who understand the evidence, accept it. Creationists, who reject science entirely, also reject the evidence.

Therefore, the biologists are right and the creationists are wrong. If they want to stop being wrong, they should learn enough about biology to understand the evidence instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

Posted on May 30, 2012 8:08:10 AM PDT
the emperor is naked

nobody but the mob followers believe this krapp
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 164 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  112
Total posts:  4096
Initial post:  May 17, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 30, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions