Darwinian Conservatism: How Darwinian science refutes the Left’s most sacred beliefs.

The American Thinker ^ | 23 July 2006 | Jamie Glazov and Larry Arnhart

[tallhappy]

These threads are generally a-substantive. I do, though, often post substantive things and try to be intellectually honest and informative.

I think you and others have agendas and are not interested in the subject except in arguing the socio-political issues surrounding it from the left/liberal side.

Do you consider that you ever post something substantive?

What would you consider substantive?

[PatrickHenry]

Time Coup d'etat.

[dmz]

It's possible that the younger generation having been indoctrinated by the presentation of only one side in school, is more accepting of evolution. But once they turn older they reevaluate what they were taught.
_______

Lots of things are possible. Like the older we get, we look for the comfort of any afterlife (given that the current one is running down).

[tallhappy]

In what way do you believe that I was mistaken?

You are mistaken in thinking origin or creation of life is not a topic of research under evolutionary theory. It is irrational to believe this and shows a lack of inquiry (with irrationality coming partly due to making statements without inquiry). It is easy to look at the field (i.e. do inquiry) and see that experiments or articles have tried to address origin of life in the context of evolutionary theory.

On another level, your answer implies that evolution does not entail only natural processes, and therefore you'd be including some sort of supernatural process as a valid aspect of evolutionary research.

Here is the exchange that began this:

Someone: Evolution's core argument is that life was created from raw natural process.

You: The theory of evolution makes no such statement.

What does "the theory of evolution" state?

[freedumb2003]

Well, we have proof positive we are intellectually devolving.

It is like watching "Jay Walking" in slow motion.

[js1138]

Evolution states that allele frequencies change in populations over time.

Biologists are interested in biogenesis, but evolution is about changes in existing populations.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I do, though, often post substantive things and try to be intellectually honest and informative.

Of course you do. LOL.

[dmz]

Show me a justification against abortion as an atheist.
____________

Society good.
Society is people.
People good.

(It helps to read this in the made up neanderthal voice I was using while writing this).

[longshadow]

WOW! Holy neurological damage, Batman! Haven't we seen this stuff somewhere before.... didn't someone post this madness on FR as a thread?

[js1138]

That's nice. Did you write it?

[tallhappy]

Evolution states that allele frequencies change in populations over time.

Is that all?

Was Darwin writing about evolution?

[tallhappy]

Yes. But do you?

You didn't answer what you think would be something substantive.

[longshadow]

Watch out! He has EVIDENCE!

http://roland-vasco.tripod.com/evidence/

[js1138]

Was Galileo writing about gravity?

[VadeRetro]

That Gene Ray, he's such a card!

[Senator Bedfellow]

I've responded in much the same vein as your posts on this thread. You mock others for their supposed insubstantiality, I mock you for your rank hypocrisy.

As for your questions, I'm not interested in playing Socratic games. If you have a point to make, feel free to make it. Otherwise, watch it wither and die. Your choice.

[Dimensio]

You are mistaken in thinking origin or creation of life is not a topic of research under evolutionary theory.

You are not correct. The study of life's origins is addressed within the field of biology, but the theory of evolution itself does not address the subject. This is because the theoly of evolution does not require that life originated through any specific process and also because the mechanics of the theory are not applicable unless life already exists.

On another level, your answer implies that evolution does not entail only natural processes, and therefore you'd be including some sort of supernatural process as a valid aspect of evolutionary research.

I intended no such implication. Science cannot address the supernatural, thus it would be inappropriate to include any supernatural claims into any scientific theory.

What does "the theory of evolution" state?

That random variation during reproduction combined with reproductive selection pressures relative to environment -- including natural and sexual selection -- resulted in the biological diversity observed today.

[tallhappy]

Why so defensive?

Darwin's book was Called the Origin of Species. Variations in allele frequencies over time take place without speciation.

I asked if allele frequencies changing in populations over time is all evolution states. You didn't answer that.

[Dimensio]

To be fair, tallhappy asked what the theory of evolution states, not for a definition of the word "evolution" as it relates to biology.

[tallhappy]

How do you define life from non-life?