Biology textbook hearings prompt science disputes [Texas]

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 08 July 2003 | MATT FRAZIER

[Stultis]

Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was published in 1859.

Gobineau's "The Inequality of Human Races" was published in 1853.

Sounds like Darwin was influenced by Gobineau!

...and ALS adds, in the next message:

sure does

more evidence towards the obvious

This is really a most fascinating little revelation of what passes for "evidence" in the mind of the creationist: an off-the-cuff, gratuitous and wrong assumption.

I don't suppose either of you thought to search the full-text, online editions of Darwin's works for the word "Gobineau"?

Naw, that would violate the whole spirit of creationism.

For the rest of you, who might be interested in more conventional forms of evidence, Gobineau (I actually searched for "Gobin" in case of misspelling) is not mentioned in either The Origin of Species (1st or 6th edition) or The Descent of Man. It might be interesting to check the volumes of letters as well, although Darwin had no discernable interest in crank science so I doubt it will turn up.

[Stultis]

the anticedents to Hitler-style anti-Semitism.

One of them was almost certainly Martin Luther.

Hmmm. Lessee how close Luther really comes to anticipating Nazism's approach to the "Jewish question":

Jews are bloodsuckers (check)
blood libel (check)
diseased (check)
burn their synagouges (check)
confiscate their homes and property (check)
deny them protection from assault (check)
make them to work at hard labor (check)
kill 'em outright (nope)

Aha! See! Luther didn't advocate death camps. Nothin' like the Nazis ('cept for burning the blood-suckers' synagogues and all that).

[Stultis]

you tried that lie over here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946313/posts?page=74#74

and got yer butt whooped

All I find in that one is Heartlander resonding with another link (#77) and VadeRetro (#84) pointing out several obvious deficiencies therein, e.g. the usual lies about the Cambrian explosion, bald denial of gene duplication, and no explaination for Archaeopteryx's reptilian characteristics.

There was no response to Vade's substantive critique. Was the "butt whooping" delivered in disappearing ink?

[PatrickHenry]

P L A C E M A R K E R (having slept through about 200 utterly worthless creationoid postings).

[ALS]

"having slept through"

of this we have no doubt

we see that reminiscing about Hitler's glory days in the air by airless2000b.c. woke you up

[Stultis]

Trolls can't even get traction from hitler anymore placemarker.

[ALS]

Darwinism/evolution supports and furthers Marxism/socialism, so can it also support and further conservatism?
If so, explain how/why.

Any attempt to deviate from that by you is your own dragon to slay. DO NOT attach my name to it.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/works/1912-dar.htm#S9

[ALS]

For the lurkers and honest observers

click the pic

[Stultis]

Skipping Marxist Screeds approvingly linked by creationists placemarker.

[ALS]

run out of ways to call christians nazis so soon?

[ALS]

Evolution is NOT Conservatism

Karl Marx on Darwin:
"Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."

much much more:
http://www.designeduniverse.com/als/notconservatism.html

[gore3000]

I proved (in #2686, addressed to you) that Darwin was passionately opposed to slavery

It has been proved to you that Darwin considered other races fit for extermination. The man was a lying hypocrite saying one thing to some and another to others.

[ALS]

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

interesting title darwood choose for his racist screed, doncha think?

[ALS]

yes it is....


no wonder the eloons are trying to paint ALL CHRISTIANS as racists


evo-Projectionism placemarker

[gore3000]

YIKES! A cranial suture!-you-

Yes, a lie0me

I guess that's what Darwin gets for quoting a CREATIONIST

No, that's what he gets for quoting a racist. That's what he gets for quoting a LIE. That's what he gets for not being a scientist and digging up all the garbage he could from whatever source to support his racist views. His racism and that of evolution is totally indisputable - as is his not being a scientist. Seems I recall asking a few hundred posts back for an example of ONE (1) experiment in the Origins and receiving no response - as usual.

[gore3000]

Nott took the trouble to include a postscript correcting the one error, as he saw it, in Gobineau's book: the notion that negroes, and other inferior races

Compare to:

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." Darwin to Graham, July 3, 1881.

[gore3000]

What is unfit about having non-coding dna?

If you read my post you would have had no need to ask that - the genome gets copied in almost every one of the 100 trillion cells in the body. That takes a lot of work to copy what you call garbage, what evolutionists call garbage and what scientists call 'non coding DNA'.

Just what are you claiming? That all noncoding dna is regulatory? that none of it is 'junk'?

Yup, and not just me, real scientists do also, that is why just about all biological research in the last decade is going into discovering the use of that non-coding DNA. As I pointed out already genes are useless unless turned on, and regulated by DNA outside of the gene. Evolutionists, if they were scientists should have been aware that this had to be true even before its discovery - as most scientists were aware of and that is why they looked for such controls - disregarding the statements of the morons of evolution.

So, at least one pseudo gene has a use; therefore they all do? BTW, isn't this an example of a gene being hijacked into an entirely new function?

As I have said, and as real science has proven - and continues to prove, the concept of junk DNA is false, the concept of 'pseudogenes' is also false. It is totally made up, it is an argument from ignorance. The article I posted ( Post# 3118 )shows quite well the contortions of evolutionists at seeing their nonsense scientifically disproven.

[whattajoke]

This post refers to ALS' designeduniverse.com. I have not pinged him because, well, he's on VI and I'd like to keep it that way.

I clicked one of his links just to check it out. If only to see what the Kansas fundies are up to with web design these days. Anyway, I scrolled through all the borrowed quotes, clips, and nonsense to get to some of ALS' personal writings. Here's a gem from the mind of the master troll... I won't even bother commenting on the ridiculous errors and lies within. Enjoy:

And then there is common sense. In a popular evolutionary explanation, here's how reptiles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.
But the theory suffers when scrutinized. According to natural selection, a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival. Obviously, flight is beneficial, and one can certainly see how flying animals might survive better than those who couldn't, and thus natural selection would preserve them.
The problem is, wings would have no genuine survival value until they reached the point of flight. Birds' wings and feathers are perfectly designed instruments. Those with crippled or clipped wings cannot fly, and are bad candidates for survival. Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would fare poorly -- it couldn't fly, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.
Let's raise an even more fundamental question: Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
And why is man so incredibly different than all other animals? What animal can solve math equations? Write poetry? Laugh at jokes? Design computer software? How can we say that man is merely "one more animal, just more highly evolved"?

[js1138]

ALS has presented evidence on his position of belief in The Bible, using biblical passages and quotes to backup his assertions. I'm assuming from your question that you do not recognize The Bible as being a credible source, so we are not going to be in agreement about what is 'evidence'.

But you confirm what is in dispute, that the textbook debate is about religion.