Evolution Is Practically Useless, Admits Darwinist

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 08/30/06 | Creation Evolution Headlines

[Suzy Quzy]

Amen.

[jwalsh07]

The article is about applied science. Biotech intelligently desgins changes in allele frequency. That is applied science. Darwinism relies on random mutations which by definition are not predictable and thus of little use in applied science. Throwing around the dreaded "creationist" word ain't changing that but feel free, I like to get a few laughs when I come on these threads.

[Suzy Quzy]

WAITING>>>>>Waiting for EVIDENCE that I asked for...notice Not ONE of these posters have sent anything. Just calling me names does not make evolution real....try as they might.

[jwalsh07]

You're stuck in a box of your own making. Not my problem. :-}

[indcons]

Your home page is very interesting (and contains several kernels of truth).

[Suzy Quzy]

Name calling again??? Waiting for a crumb of evidence of evolution that I asked you for....waiting....waiting.

[stultorum]

Did you check PatrickHenry's List-O-Links? Lots of stuff in there to study from and expand one's knowledge.

[muawiyah]

The antecedent - "defend science".

In your case it may not be possible to call you any names that would stir you out of your seat in front of your computer.

[My2Cents]

Recommended reading (featured title this month of the Conservative Book Club):

A hilarious, razor-sharp refutation of the hallowed dogmas of Darwinism

Darwinian Fairytales
by David Stove

In Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution, philosopher David Stove is relentless and surgically precise in his ability to take apart the shallow and flimsy arguments that pass for Darwinian "scholarship" these days. But Stove is not your average creationist or proponent of intelligent design: he is a not a Christian (or a believer in any religion), and declares forthrightly that Darwin was a genius. That's why it's all the more compelling when Stove, working purely from sound reasoning and a sober evaluation of the evidence, explains clearly why Darwinism is unsound, overstated, and ultimately unbelievable -- no one accuse can him of mere party spirit or partisan cheerleading.

Stove skewers modern defenders of Darwinism such as E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins, refuting their false assertions and faulty assumptions with blistering logic and devastating wit. He shows the hollowness of generally accepted Darwinian notions such as "Every organism has as many descendants as it can"; "Anything that hurts chances for survival will be rooted out by the process of natural selection"; "People who are prosperous and fortunate will have more children than the poor and disadvantaged"; and more.

Darwinian Fairytales breaks through the doctrinaire cant that still surrounds Darwinian myths -- making it the one book to read in order to understand how to refute the tired but still influential Darwinian arguments that continue to dominate the popular discourse.

"Darwinian Fairytales" debunked:

-- Why the human race wouldn't even exist today if one of Darwin's core assumptions was actually true

-- The Darwinian conception of life: how it rests on assumptions that are denied by Darwinism itself

-- How Darwin misread evidence of the differences between civilized and savage men that he found among the Yahgan Indians of Tierra del Fuego -- leading him to disastrously mistaken conclusions

-- How Darwinism depends on discredited Malthusian theories about how population growth would ultimately outstrip food production

-- Four ways in which the Malthus/Darwin theory that reproduction is the primary focus of human endeavor is false

-- Why even the best available explanation of certain matters may still be false and incomplete

-- How Darwinism overestimates human selfishness and disregards overwhelming evidence that humans are more altruistic than the theory allows for

-- Why the Darwinian struggle for life simply does not exist in human populations

-- How Darwin's theory regarding population growth is exactly the opposite of what the evidence actually shows

-- How the Darwinians actually overestimate the differences between human beings and animals in formulating their theories

-- Richard Dawkins' popular theory of the "selfish gene": why it ranks among the most absurd of the many absurd contemporary defenses of Darwinism

-- How Darwinians contradict themselves by describing adaptations as designed for certain purposes, while simultaneously denying that they mean that those adaptations were ever intended

-- The glaring factual error Darwin -- and later Darwinians -- make regarding the incidence and importance of child mortality in various species

-- Enlightenment views of man: how they always exaggerate quite ridiculously the amount that education can achieve

-- The inclusive fitness theory, which affirms a Darwinian "dog eat dog" view of human interaction: its many absurdities

-- Proof that -- contrary to a core principle of Darwinism -- cooperation has always been more common than competition among human beings

-- How the Darwinian idea that human life, and indeed all life, is devoted primarily to reproducing as much as possible is absurd, reductionist, and ultimately opposed to all human creativity and achievement

"Whatever your opinion of 'Intelligent Design,' you'll find Stove's criticism of what he calls 'Darwinism' difficult to stop reading. Stove's blistering attack on Richard Dawkins' 'selfish genes' and 'memes' is unparalleled and unrelenting. A discussion of spiders who mimic bird droppings is alone worth the price of the book. Darwinian Fairytales should be read and pondered by anyone interested in sociobiology, the origin of altruism, and the awesome process of evolution." -- Martin Gardner, author of Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience

[sportutegrl]

I guess what I was trying to say is that sometimes a species dies out due to no fault of man. Humans are not the cause of every single extinction that ever happened.

[Liberal Classic]

So can you cite a class for future petroleum engineers on applied evolutionary theory for geologists?

Of course.

Here's one at my university:

PRINCIPLES OF PALEOBIOLOGY

This example is one of a single undergraduate course picked somewhat at random.

For futher discussion of this issue, here is a press release by the Geological Society of America on what they have to say on the subject:

The Geological Society of America recognizes that the evolution of life stands as one of the central concepts of modern science. Research in numerous fields of science during the past two centuries has produced an increasingly detailed picture of how life has evolved on Earth.

[js1138]

I've seen your posts on all these threads, and if you ever appealed in a civil way for you position, people might actually pay attention to you.

Been there, done that, doesn't work. Not in that mood today.

When someone start a thread with an outright lie, it's pretty difficult to get into a conciliatory mood.

[Radix]

"...and besides, there is NO evidence of the process of evolving....anywhere."

 

I do think that is inaccurate, and at the same time presumptuous. There is evidence, and that is what should be disputed if you want to prove a point.

 

Perhaps one might begin by defining what the word "evidence" means.  I think that many here might disagree on the different meanings of a word which is not really that controversial most of the time.

[js1138]

Name calling again??? Waiting for a crumb of evidence of evolution that I asked you for....waiting....waiting.

Show me that you know what evolution is, and I will show you evidence. If you don't know what it is you are opposing, how can you evaluate evidence?

[RogueIsland]

Did you check PatrickHenry's List-O-Links? Lots of stuff in there to study from and expand one's knowledge.

You are assuming that the average FR Creationist is at all interested in learning something that might confound his or her comfortable state of abysmal scientific ignorance. No evidence of that has ever presented itself.

[Radix]

"They induce these shifts into strains of influenza that are maintained in the CDC labs."

 

Of course you are referring to Antigenic drift: A mechanism for variation by viruses that involves the accumulation of mutations within the antibody-binding sites so that the resulting viruses cannot be inhibited well by antibodies against previous strains making it easier for them to spread throughout a partially immune population.

 

Your "shifts" are not something induced by the CDC, I assure you.

[Mamzelle]

Spam placemarker. This was posted a couple of days ago, and hundreds of days before that.

[stultorum]

"You are assuming that the average FR Creationist is at all interested in learning something that might confound his or her comfortable state of abysmal scientific ignorance."

I assumed wrong.

My bad.

It doesn't sound Godly at all all those links. In fact it reads more like anti-God.

Thanks for the warning.

O needless misunderstanding!

[Stultis]

Darwin makes a bunch of observations of living beings; then observes that X looks like it might have evolved from Y; then argues that, while he can provide no evidence that it really happened that way, if you can't prove it didn't you must accept his fairy tale as fact.

The fact is that's nowhere near true. It's a completely ignorant claim. Not stupid, mind, but definitely ignorant. Which is O.K. You've probably never read Darwin's works. Most people haven't. Even most modern biologists haven't. But nevertheless the fact is that Darwin put forth numerous lines of argument for both natural selection (his theory of mechanism) and for common descent (the inference that evolution has indeed occurred and that diverse, and probably all, living things are related by ordinary biological reproduction).

With respect to the latter you ignore, just for instance, an entire chapter in the Origin where Darwin marshaled a series of arguments from the facts of biogeography (the geographical distributions of living organisms).

He was probably a Dummie.

You mean a "DUmmie"? No. Politically Darwin was a conservative (in modern terminology, although a "liberal" in 19th Century terminology). He belonged to and was a partisan of the (English version of) the party of Lincoln: The Whig party, which in America became the Republican party.

[Physicist]

So what exactly do you believe? That creatures haven't changed over time? Or that God tinkers with their forms over time?

Bonus question: how old is the Earth, according to your belief?