Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
Interesting! Uhmm an evolutionist kicked out for being a racist! Wonder who he got such ideas from????
While you constantly claim that evolution is science, you never like to discuss whether evolution is science or not. Instead you delight in Christian bashing. Methinks my statement that evolution is merely an excuse for legitimizing atheism and for trying to turn good Christians into atheists is perfectly correct.
With kine and horses, Kurnus! we proceed By reasonable rules, and choose a breed For profit and increase at any price: Of a sound stock, without defect or vice. But, in the daily matches that we make, The price is everything: for money's sake, Men marry: women are in marriage given The churl or ruffian, that in wealth has thriven, May match his offspring with the proudest race: Thus everything is mix'd, noble and base! If then in outward manner, form, and mind, You find us a degraded, motley kind, Wonder no more, my friend! the cause is plain, And to lament the consequence is vain.
(The Works of J. Hookham Frere, vol. ii., 1872, p. 334.)
Note the hypocrisy above. Darwin decries his own behavior of marrying for money.
You seem to have missed the introduction to that paragraph:
The Grecian poet, Theognis, who lived 550 B. C., clearly saw how important selection, if carefully applied, would be for the improvement of mankind. He saw, likewise, that wealth often checks the proper action of sexual selection. He thus writes ...He's describing who knew what about the effects of selection and when. As I told betty boop, I see a curious and observant mind of 131 years ago pondering the origin of mankind.
I also see typical cretinist quote-scholarship in your citation.
I think I see the problem with these "quote-mining" operations. Some of it, obviously, is pure dishonesty, by people who know better. But I suspect that most of it is done by people who are clueless that old texts become superseded by new information, and old opinions become superseded by revised opinions -- often by the same people who wrote the old opinions.
This "all quotes are equal" approach to scholarship could have its roots in bible study. After all, it's quite common to dig into the scriptures and pull out something that supports one's position. We all do this. All scripture quotes are good quotes, and religious folk routinely "quote mine" the bible. That makes sense -- with the bible -- because it's a closed work, and everything relevant to what it discusses is to be found within its covers.
But the study of science is entirely different. Science-minded people understand that new information is constantly piling up, which often renders even recent books obsolete. I suspect that many creationists simply don't grasp the situation.
But if species were designed at random by the creator, where are the 3 billion year-old human fossils? Where are the flying primates? Where are the underwater ant colonies? Where are the ground dwelling fish?
If species are created at random, why don't these exist? Don't tell me you're waiting for evidence of these to be discovered? That's what evolutionists do.
Thanks. I like that story. I haven't heard it in a long time.
But I feel like I've come full circle. About a year and a half ago when I registered on FR, I kept trying to say that this argument seems to keep cycling because Creationist/ID'ers want to talk about theology, whereas evos want to talk about science, which in my mind is a lower level knowledge.
When evos talk about species they want to talk about what things look like and the current guesses about them. Creationist/ID'ers want to start from a faith-based world view and work back. While science can be informed by faith (many big time scientists were), the knowledge involved still needs to proceed from what can be observed and/or demonstrated.
A perfect example of what goes wrong when science is narrowly based on scripture is the Arab world. While they were able to briefly make use of knowledge absorbed from conquered civilizations, they never really went anywhere with it. They are now almost completely dependent on others for technology.
Given the tendency of religious factions to splinter (250 Christian churches in the US alone), its makes sense to me to allow science to be the low level exercise it is and allow people of faith to participate in it. We are already at a point where embryos can be designed in vitro and implanted into a woman to be grown. Within the next 50 to 100 years, there will be a lot of very strange possibilities for what can be done with people and its imperative that people of faith participate in this process, otherwise anything can happen. Most of it bad.
By opting out of the scientific process, people of faith will be unemployable in many areas of science and be isolated from a decision making role.
You don't need a brain in fact, you just need to read that he is quoting someone else - to support his viewpoint. So yes, he agrees with the statement and used it as part of his theory. Darwin's racism, eugenics and other despicable traits are to be found everywhere in his works.
It is absolutely ridiculous for evolutionists to constantly assert that people write stuff in their books which they do not mean. No one put a gun on their heads and force them to write it.
Changing the playing field? How like a gore3k. Why not just suggest the Earth was in orbit around Saturn?
In one direction or another, perhaps.
No "perhaps" about it, no mystery about it, no "miracle", it's happened a hundred times before.
And, as was shown by Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin was not a scienctist. In any event, specialists do not dominate my world. They have their own agenda.
Ummm... Are you blind or is it that you have difficulty reading?
From my post followed by PH's reference.
Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler
Volume One - A Reckoning
Chapter XI: Nation and Race
Where is your credibility?
Well, there is your problem. You like the Darwininians consider anything, I repeat anything, outside of the Darwinian conception as non-science. Read Dr. James Shapiro, and/or you might actually read some of the links that Gore3000 has provided. Such as this one
The discovery that human-specific retroviruses emerged at the same time other researchers believe humans and chimps diverged was startling. Equally interesting, however was the discovery that the oldest subfamily of HERV elements is closely related and gave rise to the youngest and most recently active group of these elements. This suggests, the authors say, that "ancient families of HERVs may be capable of retaining the potential for biological activity over long spans of evolutionary time."
Interest in retroelements, which McDonald has been studying for more than a decade, has been growing recently. In a paper published last December in Nature Genetics, two researchers from Tufts University, Jennifer Hughes and John Coffin, identified 23 new members of the HERV-K group — the assemblage thought to contain the most recently active members. They found that at least 16 percent of those elements had undergone rearrangements that resulted in large-scale "deletions, duplications, and chromosome reshuffling during the evolution of the human genome."
The widespread presence of these viral elements led Coffin to tell one science magazine that humans probably have "more viruses in our genes than genes in our genes."
Just how these retroviral elements have moved around in the human genome and possibly changed organisms at the morphological level remains speculative. But there is increasing evidence that they may have been — and may still be — a driving force between evolution at the cellular and organismal levels.
I was returning the favor for someone's attack on me when I posted something from either AIG or ICR which had the genome size on it. I also posted a link from GENE-something or other as corroboration. I was pilloried for daring to post the truth from the "religious" site. What goes around comes around. Learn to read.
I don't see anything non-Darwinian here.
I've read some of gore3000's links, but I don't see anything non-Darwinian there amidst some of the other stuff either. RNA and DNA viruses, prions and other DNA transfer mechanisms have been recognized as having a role in mutations for several years. That's why we built manufacturing processes utilizing them.
In any case, both quotes of Herr Schickelgruber were from "My Struggle/Battle/Tiff/Hissyfit" and therefore the source is of no consequence. However, two things are evident. The first is that PH's quote of the "Gruber" relates to the "creation" of life not how it changes.
("For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." )
It mentions nothing of the mechanism. Which my quote does.
(In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. It also has Darwin written all over it.)
Thus if it is relevant to the evolution debate then so is abiogenisis.
Secondly, if both views of "Herr Schick" are melded into one view nearly named previously on this forum, it would designate a "Theistic Darwinian Evolutionist", a dangerously close position to yours. But I think you can safely relate that Herr Schickelgruber's shadow rarely if ever wended its way into the holy places for purpose of worship. And the mouthings of this beast relating to the wishes of God were the ramblings of a non-believer whose purpose was the imposition of Master Race Darwinian ideal on the world making him purely a "Darwinian Evolutionist".
Well then Dr James Shapiro is huffing and puffing about nothing.
What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization? Borrowing concepts from information science, new schools of evolutionists can begin to rephrase virtually intractable global questions in terms amenable to computer modelling and experimentation. We can speculate what some of these more manageable questions might be: How can molecular control circuits be combined to direct the expression of novel traits? Do genomes display characteristic system architectures that allow us to predict phenotypic consequences when we rearrange DNA sequence components? Do signal transduction networks contribute functional information as they regulate the action of natural genetic engineering hardware?
Questions like those above will certainly prove to be naive because we are just on the threshold of a new way of thinking about living organisms and their variations. Nonetheless, these questions serve to illustrate the potential for addressing the deep issues of evolution from a radically different scientific perspective. Novel ways of looking at longstanding problems have historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.
I apologize for the "lost" commas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.