Skulls Found in Africa and in Europe Challenge Theories of Human Origins

NY Times ^ | August 6, 2002 | By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

[Tribune7]

So what happens to imperfect self-replicators if there is a god and if there isn't one?

I wasn't referring to "imperfect self-replicators." I was referring to people. Did you mean people by "imperfect self replicators?"

God's existence and the existence of our souls is the most important matter about which every person must come to a conclusion. For if God exist -- and He does -- we must seek to live our lives in the specific manner that He demands of us. If we come to conclude that He doesn't exist, we make up our own rules. As Stalin did.

To say that the choice in how we live our lives -- whom we serve so to speak -- doesn't matter, is pretty stupid.

[Tribune7]

An interesting argument. The ultimate answer is I don't know, but I'll give you my guesses.

Do you really believe Stalin would have been a good person (or at least neutral) rather than an evil SOB if he hadn't been exposed to the theory of evolution?

I guess he would have been restrained by a fear of Hell, from doing the evil he ended up doing. I think a person can be led to Hel; that one can take a young person, expose him to all sorts of vile ideas and succeed in corrupting him entirely.

Could he have ended up as a good person?

Maybe.

Reverend Jim Jones make you suspicious of the ideas of Christianity or organized religion?

No. Jones can be shown to have perverted Christ's teachings by comparing his deeds with what Christ commanded. Stalin cannot be shown to have perverted Darwin's teachings -- at least in moral sense. Note, that I'm not claiming Darwin would advocate Stalin's actions.

Or do you agree with me that evil SOBs will adopt/pervert any convenient argument to serve their evil purposes?

Yes. But is everybody who does evil born without the capability to do good?.

And if so, do you concede that it's possible Stalin declined to follow Christ's teachings because it would have cramped his evil SOB style, rather than because Darwin convinced him to do so?

It's possible. Do think it is possible that he would not have done the evil he did, if he had never been exposed to Darwin?

[Tribune7]

A totally unrelated subject. Do you consider yourself a libertarian? No flame intended. On my bad days I consider myself one, actually.

[aristeides]

Something that a book published in the Soviet Union in 1940 said about Stalin's childhood might be true, but personally I would bet against it being true, especially if it's something that makes Stalin look studious or erudite.

[Republican Wildcat]

You won't find discussion and disagreement like this between Creationists.

Balderdash.

[gore3000]

So it's only fair to warn you ... posting to g3k (as we abbreviate his screename) will plunge you into frustration and dispair.

Always poisoning the well Patrick with insults and character assassination. Why don't you want discussion Patrick? Are you so afraid that your theory cannot stand on its merits?

[VadeRetro]

As an alleged reply to my 269, that's not answering the mail, is it? Maybe Stalin couldn't handle the truth, but I still want it, OK? Most of us can take it.

I have my doubts about you, of course.

BTW, Jim Jones and Torquemada were inspired by the Bible, but I'll grant you they had fewer victims. OTOH, Stalin was probably inspired rather more by Marx, Lenin, and personal ambition even if Yaroslavksy's account is true. While the book is real, the only other references to it on the web seem to be in creationist literature. Stalin's "Darwinism" didn't keep him from promoting Lysenko, who favored a form of Lamarckianism which would have shocked Darwin, who already knew better.

Do you have any arguments that aren't based on ignorance and illogic?

[PatrickHenry]

Jones can be shown to have perverted Christ's teachings by comparing his deeds with what Christ commanded. Stalin cannot be shown to have perverted Darwin's teachings -- at least in moral sense. Note, that I'm not claiming Darwin would advocate Stalin's actions.

I'm not aware that Darwin made any moral teachings. The study of science (or geometry, or music, or dentistry) is not the study of morality. So of course Stalin didn't pervert Darwin's moral teachings, because he couldn't pervert that which doesn't exist.

As for the study of evolution being the cause of Stalin's loss of faith (if he ever had any), this means very little. Many people fall away from their faith. Sometimes it's because they suffer a loss they can't accept, or because the preacher turns out to be a scoundrel, or they experience a plain old "crisis of faith." These things happen. Such people don't automatically go on to be mass murderers. Reading Darwin (as millions of people have done with no ill effects) obviously doesn't turn someone into a monster like Stalin. If it did, we'd have millions of Stalins running around.

[Tribune7]

That's a point. Although you can be pretty certain that Stalin agreed with what the book contained.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: log·ic

Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND
Date: 12th century

1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning
(2) : a branch or variety of logic
(3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS
(4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b
(1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty
(2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves

2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason

---

[VadeRetro]

Now, Patrick! No true Scotsman Christian is a bad person. Period. However, anyone or anything else, even scientific fact, may be tainted with guilt by even the wildest association.

[Tribune7]

As an alleged reply to my 269, that's not answering the mail, is it?

Well, at least it's not answering with a question as you did to my post 231. :-)

But since, you want an answer to 269, I'll say, "no."

OTOH, Stalin was probably inspired rather more by Marx, Lenin, and personal ambition even if Yaroslavksy's account is true.

Well, no, at least not specifically about rejecting Christ, If Yaroslavksy is right.

Do you have any arguments that aren't based on ignorance and illogic?

I wasn't making an argument. I was describing an event.

[PatrickHenry]

How foolish of me to have overlooked that.

[VadeRetro]

But since, you want an answer to 269, I'll say, "no."

Hmmm. Here's my 269 in full:

How about agreeing that Stalin's birth post-dates the origin of the human species (and of life on earth, the earth itself, and the universe) and thus none of the latter are influenced by the former?

And the answer is "No?" That's not going to leave us much to discuss.

[Tribune7]

You don't think Stalin's birth (and life) has influenced life on Earth?

[BMCDA]

OK, sorry, this was meant to be related to evolution in general but I see you meant something else.

So once again, I don't have a problem with the existence of a god. Maybe there is one and he has figured out the most optimal settings for the system 'society'. The problem however is that there is not one but many manuals and people even disagree on the meaning of one single manual. So this is no different than figuring out by ourselves what rules create a stable society where the happiness of as many people as possible is as high as possible.

[BMCDA]

No, except if you use the old definition of libertarian (in the economical sense).

[gore3000]

In your example, your numbers indicated that the mutant, and only the mutant, was part of a breeding pair that produced 10 offspring, half of which inherited the mutation, as per my assumption 1 (sexual reproduction). However, your population size as a whole was increasing as if each individual was producing 10 offspring, as per my assumption 2 (asexual reproduction). Either every individual pairs up to produce offspring or every individual produces offspring asexually, in which case all the mutant's offspring are mutants. You cannot mix the two types of reproduction, as you did in your example.

You are correct, I was wrong. Now I understand my mistake. In sexual production we have a pair of organisms and in a stable population there will be two progeny from the organism with the mutant, which according to the laws of chance means that one of the two should carry the mutant gene. So the fate of a new mutation is not as awful as I thought it was.

However, that as you say " A trait which confers neither a survival advantage nor disadvantage remains in the population at a constant frequency" presents severe problems for the theory of evolution. For one thing, such a mutation will never spread through the population. This is necessary for it to be able to gain mutations which will turn it into a favorable mutation and give it the possibility of becoming widely adopted throughout the species.

There is another problem with such a new mutation not being able to spread. Even though it is true that a trait remains in the population at a constant frequency, this is only true when the sample is large. A new mutation has (in a constant size population) only one chance. That is why even such a pro-evolutionist site as TalkOrigins, and a pro-evolutionist author there is forced into the admission that:

Neutral alleles Most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear. The average time (in generations) until loss of a neutral allele is 2(Ne/N) ln(2N) where N is the effective population size (the number of individuals contributing to the next generation's gene pool) and N is the total population size. Only a small percentage of alleles fix. Fixation is the process of an allele increasing to a frequency at or near one. The probability of a neutral allele fixing in a population is equal to its frequency. For a new mutant in a diploid population, this frequency is 1/2N.
From: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

This may sound strange to many, but the originator of the theory of population genetics, Ronald A. Fisher in "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" (1958), admitted as much in spite of being such a devout evolutionist that he had originally tried to challenge the accuracy of Mendellian genetics. The reason for the loss of such a new gene is quite simply explained. With only one sample, at any time that the laws of chance do not even out, (in this example when neither of the two progeny carries the mutation), the mutation will die out. Since the mutation is not spreading, the likelihood of this happening is quite high. In fact, even a mutation with a slight degree of benefit would also be lost in this manner.

[Tribune7]

The problem however is that there is not one but many manuals and people even disagree on the meaning of one single manual.

Religion can be very annoying. I love the Bible. I figure it to be the most anti-religious, pro-freedom book every conceived. It's probably why I'm not embarrased about it.

So this is no different than figuring out by ourselves what rules create a stable society where the happiness of as many people as possible is as high as possible.

I don't really disagree with you. But consider this: why should it be a goal to have a "stable society where the happiness of as many people as possible is as high as possible?" Hint: I know the answer. :-)

[Tribune7]

That's what I meant-- economic, free-market libertarian. I asked because I checked your profile page. You know that Shaw and Bertrand Russell are the enemies, right? :-)