Creationism is the claim. What is the evidence?

No, he wants all the bad, confusing things you've said to go away, patiodoggy . . .

Me too, but there's all these damn exams (like the one in 27 minutes)...

Starman's quote, "I'll probably just blaze through like a Texas Twister - but its just evolution I've come to hate, not people."
Seems he keeps his word; haven't seen hide nor hair of him since........

Damn, that was dull.


(exam, i mean)

Look, whatever.

Just clear this up: what is Darwin talking about here. Is this Gone With The Wind? The weak and sickly succumb, while the tough, healthy guys get all the chicks?

Seriously, he's talking about natural selection, or survival of the fittest, or what?

"Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development."

I don't want to be rude, but you need to think your thoughts out a little more to make sure you express what you want to, and proofread what you say. Mostly it's just rambling. Darwin isn't the only scientist, and it's not clear what you're trying to prove. Again, this is meant to be constructive--I have nothing againt what it seems you're trying to say.

Darwin pioneered the idea of natural selection. That's part of the theory of Evolution. I reccomend you look into it before you try to postulate arguments against it.

"* they have been used for a long time, which makes further research on them very fruitful."


No flies on you patiodoggy, but no fruit on the fruit flies. Thats the best argument for creationism I can give.

Darwin didn't call it evolution. He called it "Descent with modification". He observed that all members of a species are individuals. And that those individuals which possessed individual characteristics which gave them a survival advantage, were those most likely to pass on those traits to their offspring (he didn't know about genetics at that time). It's not that difficult a concept to understand. Not for some of us anyway!!!

But this evolution stuff justs leads to communism and enourages comments such as these from racist Hitler:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world."

I think this is very dangerous.

Wilso - I think Darwin did call it evolution.

Starman - Hitler would have said anything he liked to get his way - he also used the christian faith as an excuse, but that doesn't mean the christian faith supported it. Hitler had no understanding of evolution - under evolution, if all people had similar genes they would die - variations are its basis.

For more info, please see the brief overview of Evolution I wrote on page 4.

Yes, best to stay in the dark, so that when someone comes forward with such ideas we lack the critical tools to address them. It so happened that the idea of evolution conveniently fit with a model of human society that was in vogue at the time -- that is, that there was a natural progression toward "cilivized" man, and it proceeded through "savagery," "barbarism," et al. Thing is, this is built upon a faulty model of evolution -- the model that the ill-informed hold in their heads when they think of it. The progression from the Victorian construct of Homo monstrosus to their notion of Homo sapiens presupposes that evolution is linear and targeted, and they took their poor understanding of the idea as evidence that the domination of Eurasian nations over the rest of the world was perfectly "natural."

The thing is, evolution doesn't really work that way. Species are wiped out by quirks, different eras are dominated by different orders (in both the plant and animal worlds), and there is no target.

The statement that the theory of evolution leads to Hitler is absolutely preposterous. The road to Hitler's rise was paved by a phenomenally faulty resolution of World War I. But if you want to blame it on scientific progress, be my guest.




Is that enough of a rant for first-thing-in-the-morning? (I should really get down to something productive.)

There's an interesting article in today's newspaper about a new find that preceeds Lucy in Ethiopia - our cousins closer to the apes.

Which paper? The AP wire? NYT?

Starman:


If this is an argument against evolution, then maybe JoeFromChichago can invent a name for it

The scientific theory that .. is wrong because it encourages comments from [some known mass murderer] about [some known crime against humanity].

Maybe it should be called ARGUMENTUM PRO MISUSUM STUPIDUM .

patiodog, When I say newspaper, I usually mean the San Jose Mercury News. I didn't bother to mention the paper on this one, because I thought it would be reported in most major newspapers. The article is by John Noble Wilford of the New York Times. It's title is "NEW SPECIES OF HUMAN ANCESTOR DESCRIBED."

Relative, Are you a scientist? LOL

Hitler's plan was gross use of social engineering. It had very little to do with what Darwin wrote about. Social Darwinism is purely based on the survival of the fittest and was not the intent of Darwin in his writings (he, incidentally, was devoutly religious).

ci



Where was it found, the Oval Office?

Steve, I hadn't thought of that, but that's a possibility.