Posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Yes, a lie
I guess that's what Darwin gets for quoting a CREATIONIST, and giving credence to an anthropological doctrine devised by CREATIONISTS, and citing anthopological data collected by a CREATIONIST.
But we're supposed to ignore all that, right?, 'cause there just couldn't have been any scientific racism before Darwin. (Even though there was.)
Sounds like your son is doing great! Whoohoooo!
No, that's not quite right; look at p.9, footnote 28 in the link I posted earlier: Ape in God's image. It looks a whole lot like a gene with a single mutation.
Now look at the same page, notes 31 and 32. Don't they look a whole lot alike, except for a single difference?
To reproduce garbage which is essentially what you are talking about, just so that evolutionists nowadays could use it
Just so that evos could use it? Aren't these mutations really there? Anyone can use it.
but also a denial of a central part of their theory - that unfitness is destroyed.
What is unfit about having non-coding dna? It may be a problem for bacteria, who need to reproduce very fast, but how is it a problem for metazoa?
That part which is outside the genes is the part which the evolutionists moronically and/or dishonestly called 'junk DNA'. And indeed it is correct to call their assertion 'moronic and/or dishonest'. It should have been obvious (and indeed was) to many scientists and even non-scientists, that genes have to be regulated and that such regulation required very specific controls. That is the massive job which your 'junk DNA' does.
So why does something which is identical to one of the genes needed for ascorbic acid synthesis (except for one base-pair) regulate development in primates, but in other mammals just helps make vitamin C? Are you saying it evolved into a regulatory function because it wan't needed any more? Just what are you claiming? That all noncoding dna is regulatory? that none of it is 'junk'?
Now that it has been found that at least one pseudogene plays a functional role, can pseudogene functionality be used as evidence against evolution? Evidently not if you’re committed to Darwinism. In the same journal article that uncovered the functional role of Makorin1-p1 we find the following after-the-fact explanation: “Indeed, it [the functioning pseudogene] suggests that evolutionary forces can work in both directions. The forward direction is driven by pressures to create new genes from existing ones, an imperfect process that often generates defective copies of the original. But these defective copies need not be evolutionary dead ends, because pressures in the reverse direction could modify them for specific tasks.” (Hirotsune, et al., 2003)
So, at least one pseudo gene has a use; therefore they all do? BTW, isn't this an example of a gene being hijacked into an entirely new function? Haven't you claimed that this is impossible?
What sort of research would you propose to show that the defective gene needed for vitamin c synthesis in the great apes and people really serves a purpose, and isn't just a fossil showing that we share a common ancestor with the rest of the grerat apes?
Not to be too elliptical, Gobineau is widely credited with being the "father" of the pernicious racial theories that led to Hitler.Studied this at George Mason University (working on a MA in History just for kicks) two years ago under Dr. Peter Black, Chief Historian for the Holocaust Museum in DC. Sold all the textbooks on eBay and am wracking my brain to remember what Dr. Black said were the anticedents to Hitler-style anti-Semitism.
Really? Well then, I was wondering what you think of Leonard Peikoff's take on Hitler's philosophical foundations?
Reality, declares Hegel, is inherently contradictory; it is a systematic progression of colliding contradictions organized in triads of thesis, antithesis, synthesis - and men must think accordingly. They should not strive for old-fasioned, "static" consistency. They should not be "limited" by the "one-sided" Aristotelian view that every existent has a specific identity, that things are what they are, that A is A. On the contrary, they owe their ultimate allegiance to a higher principle: the principle of the "identity of opposites," the principle that things are not what they are, that A is non-A.Hegel describes the above as a new conception of "reason," and as a new, "dialectic" logic.
...True reality, he holds, is a nonmaterial dimension, beyond time and space and human sense-perception. In Hegel's version, reality is a dynamic cosmic mind or thought-process, which in various contexts is referred to as the Absolute, the Spirit, the World-Reason, God, etc. According to Hegel, it is in the essential nature of this entity to undergo a constant process of evolution or development, unfolding itself in various stages. In one of these stages, the Absolute "externalizes" itself, assuming the form of a material world. Continuing its career, it takes on the appearance of a multiplicity of human beings, each seemingly distinct from the others, each seemingly an autonomous individual with his own personal thoughts and desires.
The appearance of such separate individuals represents, however, merely a comparatively low stage in the Absolute's career. It is not the final truth about reality. It does not represent the culmination of the Absolute's development. At that stage, i.e., at the apex or climax of reality, it turns out, in Hegel's view, that distinctions of any kind, including the distinctions between mind and matter and between one man and another, are unreal....
The ethics and politics which Hegel derives from his fundamental philosophy can be indicated by two sentences from his Philosophy of Right: "A single person, I need hardly say, is something subordinate, and as such he must dedicate himself to the ethical whole. Hence if the state claims life, the individual must surrender it."
...
The state-organism is no mere secular entity. As a manifestation of the Absolute, it is a creature of God, and thus demands not merely obedience from its citizens but reverential worship. "The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth." "The march of God in the world, that is what the state is." The purpose of the state, therefore, is not the protection of its citizens. The state is not a means to any human end. As an entity with supernatural credentials, it is "an absolute unmoved end in itself," and it "has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the state."
The above are the kinds of political ideas which Hegel, more than any other man, injected into the mind of early nineteenth-century Germany.
...
The direct source of the Nazi racial ideas was the theoreticians of racism.... These men accepted wholeheartedly the collectivist sentiment of the period's intellectuals, and then sought to gain for that sentiment the appearance of scientific support - by translating collectivism into the language of the favorite science of the time, biology. The result was a mounting torrent on the following order (from Vacher de Lapouge, a nineteenth-century French Aryan-glorifier): "The blood which one has in one's veins at birth one keeps all one's life. The individual is stifled by his race and is nothing. The race, the nation, is all." No amount of passion for biology (or for Darwin) could produce such an utterance. A dose of Hegel, however, could.
What the theoreticians of racism did was to secularize the Hegelian approach, as Karl Popper explains eloquently. Marx, he observes:
replaced Hegel's "Spirit" by matter, and by material and economic interests. In the same way, racialism substitutes for Hegel's "Spirit" something material, the quasi-biological conception of Blood or Race. Instead of "Spirit," Blood is the self-developing essence; instead of "Spirit," Blood is the Sovereign of the world, and displays itself on the Stage of History; and instead of "Spirit," the Blood of a nation determines its essential destiny.The transubstantiation of Hegelianism into racialism or of Spirit into Blood does not greatly alter the main tendency of Hegelianism. It only gives it a tinge of biology and of modern evolutionism. [Karl Popper, 1962, The Open Society and its Enemies]
I got a ride in a "Buff" (B-52) clear back in the 70's. Indeed it is a bid bird.
You: First of all, your pinging me on this at least implies that you include me in the above slander.
NO, I was hoping that you'd have something to say to als. btw #2497 doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Oh well
how come evolutionists supposedly do not mean what they say according to you and other evos on this thread? Are evolutionist authors inveterate liars?
Now you've lost me entirely.
You and I both have a defective gene needed for vitamin c synthesis; we both inherited it from our parents. So does every chimp; same defect, same inheritence. Isn't the most obvious conclusion that we and the chimp have a common ancestor, who passed the defect on to its descendants? Why isn't this the most obvious scenario?
Gobineau's "The Inequality of Human Races" was published in 1853.
Indeed. Gobineau's book was THE bible of 19th Century racism. We probably shouldn't mention that he was a creationist.
An English translation of this book, by the American polygenist Josiah Nott (and another fellow whose name escapes me, but who went on to become a propagandist in Europe for the Confederacy), was published in America in 1858, two or three years before the first American edition of The Origin.
Nott took the trouble to include a postscript correcting the one error, as he saw it, in Gobineau's book: the notion that negroes, and other inferior races, were the same species as white folk.
In fairness I should also note that Nott was a "freethinking" non-Christian who distained Genesis as obviously unscientific. At the same time he was a bit disappointed at the difficulty he had stirring up controversy among American parsons, who often clucked at his infidelity while substantially agreeing with his view of race.
Nott and other polygenists did have a strong opponent -- on both scientific and biblical grounds -- in the Harvard botanist, and evangelical Christian, Asa Gray. Gray would soon become the leading champion of evolution on the American scene -- in part because Darwin's theory undermined the racist science of the polygenists.
Thanks. Please stick to your word.
ALS has presented evidence on his position of belief in The Bible, using biblical passages and quotes to backup his assertions. I'm assuming from your question that you do not recognize The Bible as being a credible source, so we are not going to be in agreement about what is 'evidence'.
I never said, nor am I saying, that ALS has presented evidence on scientific beliefs. As many have said here, science is not religion and religion is not science.
How wonderfully true A-G! Same can be said for all of us.
I noticed no response to this...why is that?
AWESOME!!!
Yeah, you just NEVER present any facts or documentation when questioned...you mean old diswuptah you! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.