Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[gore3000]

This means that if a coelocanth of today has drifted far enough away from a coelocanth of 100 million years ago that they would be unable to mate, then the two are genotyped as different species even if their phenotypes are virtually identical.

That is exactly why speciation is totally insufficient to prove that evolution has occurred. If there are no changes in functioning, in abilities, in complexity, then no evolution has occurred because evolution requires increased functioning, increased abilities and increased complexity in order for man to have descended from bacteria.

[AntiGuv]

This is a flat out lie on its face. The concept of 'lower races' had existed since time immemorial and justified such things as slavery. It did not require Darwinism. The concepts of 'eugenics' & 'natural selection' had existed since time immemorial and justified anything from infanticide to concepts of miscegenation. They did not require Darwinism. Most of humanity had been intuitive enough to figure such things out even before Darwin put them into scientific application and Mendel established their rudimentary operation. Of course, history has also been replete with those ignorants who cannot accept the obvious even when it's slapping them upside the head.

[AntiGuv]

No, this is not. I have already acknowledged that a substantial proportion of the 100 million BC coelocanth population will have undergone changes in functioning, in abilities, in complexity, and so on. The difference is that the progeny of those coelocanths would for the most part no longer look anything even remotely like a coelocanth. In much the same fashion, while some populations of prokaryotes have undergone evolution, that obviously has not prevented other populations of prokaryotes from remaining virtually unchanged. Those coelocanths which fit their niche remained in their niche; those which did not evolved into other species which evolved into other species and so on. For all I know, humans are the direct descendents of some primordial group of coelocanths....

[gore3000]

Heliocentric cosmology is a materialistic explanation of the universe.

And your whole post in no way addresses the point I made in #206 about evolution requiring that there not be an intelligent designer for it to be true.

The heliocentric theory does not require that there not be a God. Evolution does because as I said, an intelligent designer is a much more reasonable explanation for the transformation of species than materialism once it has been established that there is an intelligent designer which created life. So yes, abiogenesis is essential for the theory of evolution to be true.

[AntiGuv]

And your whole post in no way addresses the point I made in #206 about evolution requiring that there not be an intelligent designer for it to be true.

No, quite the contrary. My entire post addresses just that point for anyone not so dim that they cannot infer the obvious. Evolution no more requires the absence of an intelligent designer than heliocentric cosmology does. As for "abiogenesis" that is not essential for the evolutionary model to be true.

[gore3000]

The horrors of the 20th Century (Communism, Nazism) can reasonably be laid at the door of atheism and/or man's inherent sinfulness, but not Darwinism.

One of the insanities of Stalin's Russia was actually the repudiation of Darwinism.

As a famous Darwinist said "Darwin made atheism respectable". So yes, it can be laid at his door. Darwin was an atheist, his friends were atheists, the modern spokesmen of evolution are atheists. So yes, Darwinism is the scientific foundation for atheism. Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, but Darwin wishing to keep his atheism and his intentions hidden, refused. The founder of the idea of the master race, Haeckel, was highly lauded by Darwin and Darwin adopted many of his 'scientific' pronouncements (see the opening of the Descent of Man) as well as Haeckel's phony drawings. If the above were not enough the eugenics, the theory of inferior species, the idea of war for survival, the idea that it is okay to help natural selection by murdering people all came from Darwin. So yes, Darwin is the philosophical foundation for the horrors of Nazism and Communism.

[gore3000]

Finally, your post #208 makes a reasonably strong point that we shouldn't want Darwinism to be true. It says nothing at all about whether it is in fact so.

I think it does indeed. A society without morals, a society where life is not valued, a society where man's life has no intrinsic value cannot thrive. We saw this pretty well in Soviet Russia.

[AntiGuv]

So what? Christianity was the philosophical foundation for the horrors of the Inquisition. Does this mean we should all discard Christianity because people who wish to do harm will wrap themselves in the cloak of whatever the prevailing ideology they might twist to their ill intentions?

[gore3000]

Very well, then. Feel free to alter my original statement to read: "...genetic drift under natural selection pressures." I had assumed that I could leave the caveat unspoken, but I forgot in that moment that I'm debating with an obscurantist.

Not so fast. The theory of neutral drift, which is what you were arguing in your post is false. Adding natural selection to it does not help evolution because evolution does not create anything, it does not create new genetic information, new genes, new anything. Natural selection only destroys so adding -2 to 0 does not give you 4. What it does give you is a theory which is total nonsense - evolution.

[AntiGuv]

I was discussing natural selection - not neutral drift - and I have explicitly stated so. You can persist in thinking whatever you wish to think "just because" and I will find that of no great consequence. I do not bargain with irrationality and I do not expect to persuade you of anything. Nonetheless, you are again quite wrong. Evolution is a process, not a zero-sum game.

Incidentally, I worked a period of time for the U.S. Embassy in Soviet Russia and where your above description may've characterized its government, it certainly did not characterize its people. In any case, I could apply the exact same characterization to any number of theistic governments quite easily. Doing so would not serve to establish anything of value about their underlying religious pretenses.

[gore3000]

Arguably, the absence of God makes morality obsolete, although plenty of atheist philosophers argue otherwise

A personal morality and situational ethics are totally insufficient to restrain the basest instincts of man. This is what we saw in the 20th century and this is what we see in many of the ugliest behavior of modern times. Look what is going on in what used to be called Souther Rhodesia now. The theory of survival of the fittest, of might makes right is totally destroying the country and resulting in the starvation of those for whom the murderous agenda is supposedly being carried out.

[DWPittelli]

A personal morality and situational ethics are totally insufficient to restrain the basest instincts of man. This is what we saw in the 20th century and this is what we see in many of the ugliest behavior of modern times. Look what is going on in what used to be called Souther Rhodesia now. The theory of survival of the fittest, of might makes right is totally destroying the country and resulting in the starvation of those for whom the murderous agenda is supposedly being carried out.

At best, you have shown that religion is useful for keeping people moral. (A debatable position.) You have not shown it to be true. And you are even farther afield from showing miraculous creationism to be true. A belief in a Santa Claus who knows who's naughty and who's nice is useful for keeping children good (at least in December). It does not make Santa real.

[gore3000]

Since you here present utilitarian grounds for traditional morality, you yourself show that even an atheistic utilitarian can accept that your morality is of benefit to society.

You are finally getting my point. Materialism destroys the basis of a good society by destroying belief in God. So, like the saying went, materialism plants the seeds for the destruction of us all. Now this can in no way be called progress, or advance or helpful to the human species. Therefore the scientific materialism which evolution proposes is false. It does not lead to betterment, it leads to destruction. So again we see that truth and morality go together.

[AntiGuv]

You should grab yourself a good Medieval or Early Modern history text and you'll discover that an absolute morality and absolute ethics are similarly insufficient to restrain the basest instincts of man. This is what we saw in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries after the broad conversion to Christianity and before Darwin. Look what was going on in what used to be called the Holy Roman Empire just for starters. All those murderous agendas were supposedly carried out in the name of Christianity.

[AntiGuv]

Now this can in no way be called progress, or advance or helpful to the human species.

Well, it certainly cannot be called regress or decline or destructive to the human species at least insofar as the fashion that you imply. Refer to aforementioned history text...

[gore3000]

Although I'm still confused at why gore3000 is so anti-science.

Excuse me. Who says I am anti-science. I am completely for science. Being against the pseudo-science of evolution does not make me anti-science, it makes me pro-science. You have plenty of scientific facts which are known to be true in the article and links above. They show quite well that there is abundant scientific facts contradicting the theory of evolution and in my mind they overwhelmingly disprove the theory. If you disagree with my position, then disprove the facts I have laid out instead of making baseless assertions.

[Alamo-Girl]

To keep things in perspective, here's some information for the discussion on democide: Murder by Government

[AntiGuv]

Well, you can already tell from my moniker that I'm not fond of governments as a general rule... Thanks for an interesting link, though!

[gore3000]

Scientists Spy Dozens of New Frog Species in Sri Lanka.

So what? They found some supposedly new species of frogs in Sri Lanka by doing an exhaustive search. That's why they did the search is it not? To discover something new. Why this should be considered evolution is only in your eyes.

BTW - unScientific American again shows the total stupidity of its editorial staff. It is a wonder these idiots even got a high school diploma. They state as one of the reasons for considering these frogs as new species:

By comparing the specimens to Sri Lankan samples stored in museums around the world and analyzing differences in appearance, genetics and behavior (including the animals's telltale croaks).

How can you tell the 'croak' of a frog that has croaked?

[AndrewC]

My point, however, is that when two populations can never produce viable offspring via natural means, then they are invariably of different species.

So a eunuch is a different species?

And in case you didn't know it, llamas and camels, which diverged 30 million years ago, can produce viable offspring which may be fertile.