5
   

Social effects of the theory of evolution

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 09:42 pm
@wmwcjr,
Bless your heart, you cute li'l rodent.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 09:46 pm
@gungasnake,
Lenin, Stalin and up through Kruschev all felt that the concept of evolution was bourgeois bullshit and so, founded several "competing" Lamarkian based , and Communist party approved, theories of acquired characteristics.

remember Lysenko?
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 10:49 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
That's not what you said. You are trying to weasel over a bit to eliminate ANY necessity

Really ? Here are the two things I said...its in English .
Quote:
I have yet to see a specific scientific advancement that needed it

Quote:
name one discovery that needed the theory of evolution for it to be discovered


Quote:
The use of evolutionary development of forams is critical to oil and gas exploration
You lost me...you seem to be saying that if you see a lion you are in Africa...how does different versions of micro-organisms rely on the principle of evolution for large animals ?

Quote:
You seem to think that the very discovery of common ancestors and the parent species was able to be completely done without considering the evolution of the clades in which the "cat" members reside?
No, I am saying the grouping by similarity is a defect in the Theory of Evolution .

Quote:
I was curious why you defined evolution up front of your post. Are you afraid that no one but you seems to understand the concept?
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder...I defined evolution so we wouldn't bog down on what I meant by evolution .

Quote:
but these applications do benefit from knowing the mechanisms defined by nat selection
So give us an example...

Quote:
We are quite fortunate(for one example) in having been able to see the pluralistic "divergence" among several species of anadromous fish that had been "trapped" behind dams built in colonial times along New England Rivers. Macroevolution of daughter species are able to be seen from a single parent population thatwas stuck behind these dams about 300 years ago. (That's short enough to result in the appearance of these new species that are defined by special adaptive mechanisms that have resulted in new phenotypic forms.
You have got it totally backwards...that is a discovery that helps prove Evolution...I want a discovery that was a result of KNOWING evolution...remember the definition you couldnt see the point of ?
Quote:
Try not to command a discussion
Is that your job ? I am happy to listen to an expert like yourself, but at times you can not think outside the box . Most of the time I think you are guilty of reading with a strong bias . Open your mind just long enough to understand the point being made .
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2015 10:52 pm
@farmerman,
Gunga raises points...to dismiss anyone is not scientific but emotional . You may dismiss his points after looking at them, but to dismiss him as a person says more about your failings to be scientific than anything . Is it based on the assumption you already know everything and that is not to change in any way ?
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 12:48 am
@farmerman,
Lysencho ---wasn't he the guy that almost starved the soviet union because he purged Darwin from the Soviet agricultural sciences in favor of the state supported LaMarkist evolutionary hypothesis?

Rap
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 07:12 am
@Ionus,
Ill take that risk. Ive been playing with his singular obsession for about 10 years and don't see anything Ive got to be ashamed of.

Hes one who cannot be separated from his worldview. I used to think he was kidding but am now certain that hes a true believer
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 07:16 am
@farmerman,
10 years...well I suppose you know his opinion and why by now... Very Happy
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 07:18 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
your failings to be scientific than anything . Is it based on the assumption you already know everything and that is not to change in any way ?
Had you been around, you would have seen that my opinions and understanding change frequently. Gunga, on the other hand, has stood steadfastly to ONE worldview, whether he has hd any facts or not. For example, his use of quote mining is a full example of the fraud and deception that is partnered with the Creationist beliefs. Many here have told gunga that hes been misquoting and and rearranging quotes of others to try to support his beliefs. Then his only excuse is that these people should not have provided the fodder from which the quote mining could be done. REALLLLY??
BTW, why not jut pay attention to your own points. I can easily handle gungasnake without breaking asweat.

Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 07:25 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
why not jut pay attention to your own points
Fair enough . I withdraw the comment . I do have trouble with excluding people and I recommend no one do it . Everything from school massacres to the world wide movements like Nazis and Islamists brag about who they exclude, bully or put down . We should brag about who we have found to include .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 07:32 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
You lost me...you seem to be saying that if you see a lion you are in Africa...
If you wish to sound simpleminded, be my guest. Why not find a book on petroleum geology and the TREATISE of INVERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY. I have neither interest nor time to be your teacher. A library card is your friend.

Quote:
No, I am saying the grouping by similarity is a defect in the Theory of Evolution
Evolution does not do that at all. Similarities, or any amount of convergence happens in many animal orders. For example, "Saber Toothness" as you brought up earlier, was seen in marsupials, perisodactyl (ungulates) felis of the placentals , nd even Pantotheria. All of these are classified in separate clades.
BTW, binomial nomenclature has always been somewhat "Creationist" after Linneaus. Science has attempted, ever since the last century and a half to really define the sources and relationhips among anmials nd plants by fossils, genetics AND embryology. So your point is one of ignorance, not fact.

Quote:
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder...I defined evolution so we wouldn't bog down on what I meant by evolution .
So, by assuming I had a "chip on my shoulder" (why, because I don't deign to agree with you on this point?), you decided to use a well known technique to piss people off. Theres a name for that. Im not gonna bite further


Quote:
Most of the time I think you are guilty of reading with a strong bias . Open your mind just long enough to understand the point being made
When you make a valid point, I certainly shall.
YOU have an annoying penchant to quickly change your POV (and by inference your previous post).

MY comment about anadromous fish was in response to theis point you made
Quote:
Evolution that can be seen in a life time is not a proof of evolution over millions of years

So you went to quickly patch up that error you made and "linked" it to your statement of "What does evolution play a part in"??
(of which you also changed your position from "Where is evolution important" to one of "Where is evolution the only means in which something is done"??

I was born, just not yesterday. Try to keep on your message and don't do the -etrick of changing your position with your own brand of quote mining in the hopes that nobodyll notice the errors.

I may be single minded and lack creativity skills, but its payed the rent for almost 40 years. So Im doin ok if you don't mind.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 07:43 am
@raprap,
Yep, Lysencko spent a career cutting tails off animals to try to invest a trait towards "tailessness" as an acquired characteristic. Imagine and entire country"S biology programs being based on that.

Although, latest research into epigenetics has shown that reactive enzymes are often "kicked in" to create receptor planes in noncoding genes that can cause some aspects of acquired responses to become heritable (like drug responses in fetuses and allergies to smoke ),
And in many cases within lab animals, the epigenetic responses occur to a non gravid female who has not yet been bred.

Play "Twilight Zone" theme song
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 08:45 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Why not find a book on petroleum geology
And I thought you were a geologist...dont you know the answer ? You were asked the question and now you claim you cant explain the answer because you are too high and mighty for all that .

Quote:
Evolution does not do that at all.
Evolution does not use Biology classifications ? Why not find a book on Biology . A library card is your friend . Did you not understand the reference was that Biology classifies by similarity ? What do you understand ?
Quote:
Science has attempted, ever since the last century and a half to really define the sources and relationhips among anmials nd plants by fossils, genetics AND embryology. So your point is one of ignorance, not fact.
Science has attempted and I am ignorant of that fact because you have ESP ? How do you know what I know...I increasingly suspect you dont know what you used to know . Does Biology classify by similarity, yes or no, not what was attempted .
Quote:

Are you afraid that no one but you seems to understand the concept?
Thats what makes me think you have a chip on your shoulder...what does it make you think of ? Your inate superiority to mortals ? Your disdain to do anything in a post but to regurgitate half remembered nouns in the hope no-one will suspect you of obfuscating to hide your real inability ?

Quote:
YOU have an annoying penchant to quickly change your POV
You have a total inability to understand anyone else's POV which includes completely misunderstanding mine in the first place and further confusing yourself as I patiently explain what you clearly dont understand . I dont change my POV . You on the other hand tend to be confused, perhaps rushed .

Here is what I said:
Quote:
Here are the two things I said...its in English .
Quote: I have yet to see a specific scientific advancement that needed it
Quote: name one discovery that needed the theory of evolution for it to be discovered

And your take is that those two statements are so different as to warrant telling me I am
Quote:
You are trying to weasel over a bit to eliminate ANY necessity
That is rather typical of your gibberish and I haven't cut it short . What were you trying to say ? Are you serious when you say you cant see the similarity in those statements ?

Your manoeuvrings are childish and embarrassing . Your attempt to paraphrase the above (in bold) is :"Where is evolution important"
"Where is evolution the only means in which something is done"??
And you really can not see the reality of your argument .

Yet you say:
Quote:
I was born, just not yesterday. Try to keep on your message and don't do the -etrick of changing your position with your own brand of quote mining in the hopes that nobodyll notice the errors.


Then:
Quote:
Similarities, or any amount of convergence happens in many animal orders.
I make the point that convergence evolution in a system where species are classified according to appearance and similarities is a handicap and your take is to argue that it is common . WTF ???

Now you have so totally trashed any clear picture of the original argument so I will repeat it:
Quote:
I want to know a specific discovery... Like the discovery of x-rays, or penicillin . That sort of thing .
and in other posts I further explained (note this is not a change in POV) using a definition of evolution, tell me how Evolution has directly led to a discovery rather than discoveries reinforcing Evolution .

Try sticking to the point, read what is written not what your ego wants to defeat, leave out the big words to impress people and you might actually convince someone you have a rough understanding .
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 08:50 am
@Ionus,
By way of further explanation, I can link the discovery of penicillin with the Theory of Antibiotics which then leads to the discovery of more antibiotics, where upon the theory is refined and more are discovered and so on .

Now with Evolution, I can link the understanding of the Galapagos Islands with the Theory of Evolution which then dead ends . You continue with what has been discovered as a direct result of the Theory .

Clear ??
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 09:56 am
@Ionus,
Quote:

No, I am saying the grouping by similarity is a defect in the Theory of Evolution
Evolution does not do that at all.


There yu go, changing your original statements. DO YOU EVEN KNOW THAT YOU DO THICRAP?
Please be honest with your discussions or go **** yourself BYE ASSHOLE!!
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 05:25 pm
@farmerman,
Do you think Ionus is a sock puppet?
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 09:08 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Quote:
No, I am saying the grouping by similarity is a defect in the Theory of Evolution
Evolution does not do that at all.

There yu go, changing your original statements. DO YOU EVEN KNOW THAT YOU DO THICRAP?
Please be honest with your discussions or go **** yourself BYE ASSHOLE!!

Ahhh...Gomer ? Are you feeling alright ? The bit in bold...you said that here :
http://able2know.org/topic/271756-3#post-5919115 Dont you remember ? Have an Alzheimer's check for your sake . I tried to tell you that you dont understand much . You read with a great bias rather than relaxing and trying to understand what is being written, I bet you start defeating the oppositions argument in your mind as you go . This creates misconstrued information . Your inability to take in new ideas I put down to your age, but your inability to understand...well, that is a worry .

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2015 10:04 pm
Quote:
Governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.[25][26][27][28][29][30] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[31]

As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of racism. [32][33] Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s. [34] Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. [35] For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex the following:
“ At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.[36] ”

John C. Burnham wrote in the journal Science the following:
“ After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The African was inferior — he represented the missing link between ape and Teuton." [37]
raprap
 
  3  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 12:36 am
@gungasnake,
GanjaSnaKKKe the Stalinist Communism wasn't based on the Theory of Evolution. The Stalinist Politboro was based on the discredited evolutionary hypothesis of Lamark. The consequence was the destruction of soviet agriculture and biological development for almost 50 years and turning Russia from Europe's breadbasket into a starving nation. (Consequence of Lysenco).

Sorry GanjaSnaKKKe, your revisionist history is as flawed as your supposed science.

Rap
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 03:57 am
@plainoldme,
Good point. I was noticing that Quahog and Ionus have similar speech patterns and will change their original questions after someone answers them. Then Ionus will start questioning our sanity, which is always a cheap trick when one is clueless.



farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2015 04:06 am
@raprap,
That whole pile of "Un-Scholarship" was a lift from CONSERVIPEDIA. I guess that Conservipedia has not commitments to fact, truth, honesty and real history.

CMON gunga, why don't you edit your own mind for Chrissakes.That clip is total garbage.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/24/2024 at 07:34:09