The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[js1138]

that gene is already doing an essential job for the organism and changing it will destroy the function it is performing and result in serious problems to the organism

Maybe sometimes true, but not relevant. Most of the DNA strand is non-functional -- left over from previous uses, but stored in the genetic attic. It is available for modification and re-use.

[gore3000]

There is no proof, there's evidence, despite your claims to the contrary.

Whatever you call it, let's stop the semantics and let's see it.

[gore3000]

The second one is pretty cool because it's the one where Darwin said about the absence of certain fossils, "

So Darwin was the ancestor of Ms Cleo? He went around making thousands of predictions and when one or two were proven correct he called his theory proven? A few posts back I showed how many things Darwin was incorrect about. Important things at the heart of his theory and his "predictions". The above was a lucky guess and part of the chutzpah of the charlatan that he was. He also predicted that the fossil record would prove evolution and it has not done so after 150 years and 100 times more fossils. Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion with some 20-30 new genera appearing which had never been seen before is a very strong disproof of evolution.

[gore3000]

"Most mutations are neutral or non-fatal. "

They indeed are fatal most often and almost every time are detrimental and I hereby challenge you to show otherwise.

[gore3000]

You are absolutely wrong. Social Darwinism was not the misuse of Darwinian theory, it was putting Darwinian theory into action:

How is that different from building and using a bomb?

A bomb can be used or misused. A theory that promotes the killing of innocents, the lame and the weak cannot be used for good.

[gore3000]

Evolution says to kill the weak, the lame, the useless. In other words, he and his theory were the originators of the evil proposition of eugenics. That is where the Nazis got the excuse. The theory itself is evil and you can do all the double-talk you like, it does not change it. Let me post Darwin's words again which you are trying to make people forget about with your rhetoric:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

[gore3000]

You folks call it science and all you keep doing is playing word games and refusing to discuss the facts. All you are doing is showing everyone the total fear of the facts and the total dishonesty of evolutionism.

[gore3000]

We'll go over the other stuff in the other thread, but we agree here: Malthus (an Anglican pastor no less, hehehe), was an idiot.

Thanks for your honesty. It was Malthus and his chicken-little theory that formed the basis for natural selection.

[gore3000]

Savagery may be a fact of life. The problem with the quote above is that Darwin encouraged the savagery. Decent people, decent theories discourage it. Decent people try to encourage others to do what is right, not what is worst.

[gore3000]

There's no way we'll ever find all of the fossils necessary to close up every little hole to make people like you happy.

We are not talking about little holes, we are talking about humongous holes. Like the holes between mammals and reptiles, the wholes between birds and dinosaurs, the wholes between every major species on earth. There are no intermediaries either in the distant record or in the near record for any species.

[gore3000]

This was in another thread. But in Mein Kampf, his speeches, private conversations and writings, he always insists that he is doing the right Christian thing, and continually proclaims himself a Christian.

Liars say whatever they want, that is not an indictment upon the Christian church and has nothing to do with Christian teaching. His actions had nothing to do with Christian teaching but they had everything to do with Darwinian teaching - eugenics in particular, cleansing the race of undesirable characteristics by murder.

[gore3000]

Makes it pretty tough to be a designer, also.

You have it backwards, DNA makes it quite hard for a mindless force to design anything. However for whoever designed the whole thing, it was not that hard because He had created the design and all the parts.

[gore3000]

Change in allele frequency over time.

Thanks for confirming my statement that you talk to ten evolutionists and get twelve different theories! That is the second one for you! What you have said cannot be even be considered a theory. For example you need to tell us by what means these frequencies change.

[gore3000]

We can add another quotation from another evolutionist atheist:

Now a third one of Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace, of course, had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, "where is God in your theory?" And Laplace answered, "I don't need that hypothesis." Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created a secular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on, the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal.
From:    Ernst Mayr - What Evolution Is - Edge Magazine 10/31/01

[gore3000]

Since most DNA is dead code, that would mean most mutations have no effect at all.

You are absolutely wrong - and so is evolution. When the genome was finally deciphered, numerous parts of it did not contain genes. The evolutionists quickly jumped in with their explanation - this is junk DNA they said and the source for our evolution. Like the rest of the nonsense evolutionists have been saying for 150 years this "prediction" of evolution, has been proven wrong:

Conclusion

The idea that a major part of our DNA is "garbage" ignored the fact that a key feature of biological organisms is optimal energy expenditure. To carry enormous amounts of unnecessary molecules is contrary to this fundamental energy saving feature of biological organisms. Increasing evidence are now indicating many important functions of this DNA, including various regulatory roles. This means that this so-called non-coding DNA influences the behavior of the genes, the "coding DNA", in important ways. Still there is very little knowledge about the relationship between non-coding DNA and the DNA of genes. This adds to other factors making it impossible to foresee and control the effect of artificial insertion of foreign genes.
From: Junk DNA

[Dimensio]

That is the second one for you!

What was my first one?

For example you need to tell us by what means these frequencies change.

Actually there are multiple contributing factors, but how it happens doesn't matter -- what matters is that it happens, that is evolution.

It's kind of like inertia; an object will maintain constant motion unless influenced by an outside force, but the nature of that outside force isn't relevant to the fundamentals of inertia.

[gore3000]

Only because there's not universal agreement on what constitutes a species. We make organisms at work all the time that can no longer interbreed with their original species, only among themselves.

The reason there is no agreement for what speciation is, is because the changes are hardly discernible either genetically or in any other way. A small change can be entirely due to a selection of different paths to react to the environment. We know that the body reacts to the environment in many ways - attacking intruding bodies for example, regulating body temperature and many other ways. So making small changes to adapt to the environment need not involve any change in the genes at all but just the turning of different genes on to act to adapt to the environment. Indeed, this is the most likely cause because many of the examples of speciation claimed by evolutionists are way too fast to allow for a mutation to have achieved such changes.

[Dimensio]

Liars say whatever they want, that is not an indictment upon the Christian church and has nothing to do with Christian teaching. His actions had nothing to do with Christian teaching but they had everything to do with Darwinian teaching - eugenics in particular, cleansing the race of undesirable characteristics by murder.

Eugenicis is hardly "Darwinistic". At best it's a perversion of evolution, attempting to force-fit biological events to a social structure.

Anyone who claims that evolution or Darwin's theories logically leads to eugenics is either lying or has a terrible understanding of biology and sociology.

[gore3000]

I can see why you believe that chance always begins at ground zero. It is the way you think. The questions I have raised regarding the ratchet mechanism of variation and selection have been ignored and sidestepped, but not discussed.

Well, I am doing so now and discuss it in a couple of posts. Basically there is no Junk DNA which is what you are hanging your hat on. All DNA has a purpose. That is why mutations hurt the organism - they make a necessary part of it unusable. This is contrary to survival of the fittest and all that. Read the article one or two posts above this one and come back to me.

[Doctor Stochastic]

All DNA has a purpose.

Perhaps you have a proof of this? Show us where the non-coding regions of the human genome have a purpose.