MY SECOND ANN COULTER THREAD - EVOLUTION DISCUSSION (or Here We Go Again)

[7thson]

Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -

Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.

On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:

1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)

2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)

3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)

My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?

On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!

[HayekRocks]

How about the field of electro magnetics.

I have never heard of electro magnetics. Do you mean electricity and magnetism?

[Oztrich Boy]

Guess he's never heard of Canaanites, Cimmerians, or Albigensians either. What a boob!

The quote is from Annorexia. I know she tooks sorta tranny, but I understand she is female.

[HayekRocks]

"the first genocide in recorded history"

I think the first real genocide in the Bible is Numbers Chapter 31. Other genocides were done by God, which doesn't really count.

[1] The LORD said to Moses,
[2] "Avenge the people of Israel on the Mid'ianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people."
[3] And Moses said to the people, "Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Mid'ian, to execute the LORD's vengeance on Mid'ian.
[4] You shall send a thousand from each of the tribes of Israel to the war."
[5] So there were provided, out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
[6] And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand from each tribe, together with Phin'ehas the son of Elea'zar the priest, with the vessels of the sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand.
[7] They warred against Mid'ian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and slew every male.
[8] They slew the kings of Mid'ian with the rest of their slain, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Mid'ian; and they also slew Balaam the son of Be'or with the sword.
[9] And the people of Israel took captive the women of Mid'ian and their little ones; and they took as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods.
[10] All their cities in the places where they dwelt, and all their encampments, they burned with fire,
[11] and took all the spoil and all the booty, both of man and of beast.
[12] Then they brought the captives and the booty and the spoil to Moses, and to Elea'zar the priest, and to the congregation of the people of Israel, at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho.
[13] Moses, and Elea'zar the priest, and all the leaders of the congregation, went forth to meet them outside the camp.
[14] And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from service in the war.
[15] Moses said to them, "Have you let all the women live?
[16] Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Pe'or, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD.
[17] Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.
[18] But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

[HayekRocks]

I'm interested in reading more on the DNA research as I have time, but I'm currently not convinced on the "why" part of evolution, at least as a blanket answer goes.

I hope you will not be upset at me for saying this, but it seems to me, that if you do not understand much about DNA, perhaps you should not be so confident in your assertions about evolution.

[Coyoteman]

I'm interested in reading more on the DNA research as I have time, but I'm currently not convinced on the "why" part of evolution, at least as a blanket answer goes.

DNA is a key.

Darwin theorized on the basis of the natural history he observed in his day. There were virtually no hominid fossils in 1859--the original Neanderthal site and that's about it.

Since then we have 150 years of additional natural history and hominid fossils. They support Darwin.

Then we have DNA. It was not even dreamed of in those days. But guess what? It supports the broad picture of evolution theorized by Darwin! It could just as easily demolished Darwin, but it did not.

(Maybe the old boy was onto something!)

Now studying DNA, particularly for some of us who may have graduated some years ago, can be challenging. But, I think this is where the real finds will be made. Fossils are great, and carried the theory to new heights for many years, but I think DNA will carry things to a greater and greater extent from now on.

Better start crackin' the books. That's what I'm working on now too.

[Ichneumon]

But then again, your views are based on belief, since the fossil record changes can't be duplicated and observed in a controlled environment as real science would be performed.

Nonsense. You have a very misguided and faulty understanding of how observation and duplication are used in the scientific method. Here, read this to get a clue: Explaining the Scientific Method

P.S. Are you now going to call me a liar for stating my belief/opinion?

Of course not, don't be snotty. I will, however, point out that you have declared your admittedly unsupported and unsupportable belief as if they were established facts. This is reckless behavior.

[Ichneumon]

Hitler didn't invent Darwinism, he just used it as an excuse to "clense" the races.

Gee, really? Then why do his private notes show that he based his idea of inferior races on the Bible? Hitler's own handwritten notes, drawing an outline of his philosophy:

Hitler divided his study into five sections:

1. The Bible
2. The Aryan
3. His Works
4. The Jew
5. His Work

Under the first section, "The Bible -- Monumental History of Mankind", he lists these topics (among others): "2 human types-- Workers and drones-- Builders and destroyers", "Race Law", "First people's history (based on) the race law-- Eternal course of History".

Hitler was actually privately basing his racial view of mankind on *Biblical* foundations.

Here's a Nazi propaganda paper -- no mention of evolution or Darwin, but references to Christ in regards to "driving the devil from the lands":

The headline reads, "Declaration of the Higher Clergy/So spoke Jesus Christ". The caption under the cartoon of the marching Hitler Youth reads, "We youth step happily forward facing the sun... With our faith we drive the devil from the land."

He just thought that "natural selection" thing needed a little boost I guess.

No, Hitler thought God needed a little boost:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
-- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"

While we're on the subject, did the Ku Klux Klan subscribe to Darwin when they were trying to keep the "mongrel races" in "their place" and preventing them from "polluting" the white race through intermarriage, or were they a bunch of God-fearing Christians? Let's check, shall we?

In 1916, the oath for joining the KKK included the following questions: "Each of the following questions must be answered by (each of) you with an emphatic "yes": [...] Fourth. Do you believe in the tenets of the Christian religion? [...] Eighth. Do you believe in and will you faithfully strive for the eternal maintenance of white supremacy?" Source: FBI internal document, "The Ku Klux Klan, Section 1, 1865-1944 .

And the Christian foundation of the KKK is hardly limited to 1916, in 1953 they declared that the only membership requirement was to "believe in God and the United States" (source), and even today they're still a proudly bible-thumping group (see also here).

Here's another goody from that same FBI document:

In 1922, Evans gave Stephenson the job of organizing the Klan in Indiana. Stephenson hired full-time organizers and found Indiana a fertile field for the Klan's traditional program directed against Catholics, Jews, Negroes, and foreigners, which he extended to include communists, bootleggers, pacifists, evolutionists, and all persons the Klan considered immoral.

Let's see... The KKK versus the "evolutionists"... Okay, I know which side the angels are on in *that* face-off...

Hey, mc5cents, if evolution is the root of all evil, how do you explain the Christians in the KKK despising the evolutionists instead of being inspired by them?

Meanwhile: The KKK is against the evolutionists, Ann Coulter is against the evolutionists -- so which side does that put her on?

Oh, and speaking of Coulter -- she cluelessly claims that "the first genocide in recorded history" occurred after "Darwinism gained currency" (hey, it also happened after "the New testament became popular, is she asserting cause-and-effect *there* too?), but clearly the woman's an idiot. She laughably tries to say that "the first genocide in recorded history" occurred sometime after 1859 (when Darwin published his book on evolution), but anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge (which leaves out Coulter, apparently) knows that there have been genocides for thousands of years, including several detailed in the Bible, countless throughout Asia and Africa, and notably the genocide of the aborigines in Tasmania, committed against the "savages" by good Christians quoting scriptural "justification", which ironically a number of anti-evolutionists have tried to blame on "Darwinism", despite the fact that it happened in *1847*, more than a decade BEFORE Darwin had published his first work on evolution...

So just how stupid *is* Ann Coulter, that she can say the "first genocide in recorded history" happened after 1859? The word "moron" seems woefully inadequate. And she's not very honest either.

[Ichneumon]

Of course when you reveal the futility of their premise, they claim you don't don't understand evolution

...when the shoe fits...

The nature of the evolutionist argument betray all the earmarks of self-deceit.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, so you keep sneering, but when challenged to support your twaddle or deal with the actual evidence supporting evolution, you keep running away.

Why not just admit you're a blustering blowhard who can't and won't back up his bluffs, and be done with it?

[Virginia-American]

SM: I didn't say anything about deceit.

True, that was Jorge. I pinged you because his reply was to you.

Thinking back, I believe it was you that accused me of deceit (lying about being an undercover ID agent or something to that effect).

I didn't intend any such thing; show the actual post & I'll explain what I meant or apologize.

But I'm wondering if many of the experiments you reference aren't better described as observations...

six of one, half-a-dozen...

The point being, given a few DNA sequencing results, and the phylogeny of the organisms in question, the ToE makes testable predictions about other DNA sequences. None of the "alternatives" do.

I'm interested in reading more on the DNA research as I have time,

It is fascinating, and is very strong evidence for the current theory. This and this (two essays from talkorigins) have outlines of some of the DNA work, and also lots of references.

, but I'm currently not convinced on the "why" part of evolution, at least as a blanket answer goes.

Fair enough. Is there some specific phenomenon that seems to require something outside the current theory?

[Virginia-American]

Oh, and speaking of Coulter -- she cluelessly claims that "the first genocide in recorded history" occurred after "Darwinism gained currency"

I'm sure the Turks were all riled up by Darwinists when the murdered the Armenians ... sheesh

Thanks. I always assumed that the Klan was anti-evo, but never bothered looking it up.

[PatrickHenry]

Splendid post. The angels sing again!

[DungeonMaster]

When science cannot explain something using natural theory either the phenomenon is (a) supernatural and hence beyond the scope of science by definition or (b) natural but not yet understood by science.

I've never seen any scientific text default to (a) but I've certainly heard many teachers and read many writings that said religion and superstition are employed man's scientific understanding fell short. The also said that as our scientific understanding has expanded, superstition and religion have been replaced. In other words, religion is for the scientifically illiterate. You still hear it on crevo threads every day.

[DungeonMaster]

Are you saying you know for sure Jesus didn't walk on water?

I'm saying science knows He didn't and has no other recourse. I happen to believe He did, by the way. Science is the study of repeatable phenomena, natural forces and quantities and reactions. There is no default to the supernatural in science.

[DungeonMaster]

Where?

A small collection of properties about gravity and specific gravity and surface tension and several others. Science says no one walks on water except critters too small to break water's surface tension or ice. As I said twice before, there is no default to the supernatural in science. We were told all throughout school, at least I was, that supernatural explanations were invented by men before he learned the science.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm saying science knows He didn't and has no other recourse."

And you are wrong about what science can or can't say.

"Science is the study of repeatable phenomena, natural forces and quantities and reactions. There is no default to the supernatural in science."

True. The supernatural is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Scientists are agnostic about it. Which is why science doesn't say that Jesus didn't walk on water.

[HayekRocks]

The also said that as our scientific understanding has expanded, superstition and religion have been replaced.

Do you not think that this is true, at least in part? We used to pray for rain. Now we surf to weather.com. We used to think sickness was the act of the devil. Now we know it is bacteria.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"We were told all throughout school, at least I was, that supernatural explanations were invented by men before he learned the science."

This is still a very possible explanation.

[DungeonMaster]

Scientists are agnostic about it.

We're not talking about scientists.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"We're not talking about scientists."

Science is a methodology. Scientists are the ones who are agnostic about the supernatural.

[Thatcherite]

Me: When science cannot explain something using natural theory either the phenomenon is (a) supernatural and hence beyond the scope of science by definition or (b) natural but not yet understood by science.

You: I've never seen any scientific text default to (a)

The thing is, we have no way of distinguishing between supernatural activity, and natural activity that we don't yet understand. Yet the two conclusions lead to vastly different results. Put it this way, no-one ever made a scientific advance by concluding that something they didn't understand was the result of a supernatural agency. To do so is to throw your hands up in defeat. Hence the default assumption has to be (b). That doesn't deny the possibility of (a); it simply says that we can never distinguish between (a) and (b) and (b) is the only possibility that can be investigated scientifically.

but I've certainly heard many teachers and read many writings that said religion and superstition are employed man's scientific understanding fell short.

Indeed, I've said the same thing myself many times on these threads. To say that scientific knowledge can trump and replace superstition is hardly a revelation. At one time, only a couple of hundred years ago, pretty much every phenomenon was explained as direct supernatural intervention. The weather, disease, conception, tectonic action, germination. Now we know better. These things have natural explanations (which does not deny the possibility that a deity created the rules make the natural clockwork go). As an example lightning was explicitly believed to be the wrath of God by many religions. Evil to to attempt to deflect the power of God's manifest wrath with a lightning rod. Yet the cathouse with a lightning rod would be spared while the neighbouring church without one would be struck. God seemed to weak indeed, if His manifest will could be deflected by $1 of metal. Perhaps God was not personally directing every lightning strike after all. Religion is weakened by such conflicts whenever it fights the conclusions drawn by science. Physical evidence is a powerful persuader.

The also said that as our scientific understanding has expanded, superstition and religion have been replaced. In other words, religion is for the scientifically illiterate. You still hear it on crevo threads every day.

I have never heard that said on these threads. Numerous top scientists and engineers are and have been religious. However science can only be meaningfully conducted by leaving Holy Writ at the laboratory door.