"Genetic Death": The Evolution Meat Grinder

bern

By itself this doesnt say anything outrageous but, not having read the book, whats its entire thesis? Is it an explanation of creativity? does it go on to say that science ignores facts? Doesnt science attempt to fit evidence into theory?
Youre abilities in pulling up little snippets of othe peoples thoughts and then posting them as if you give a squat, I find amusing but a little bit sad. Like the guy who wanted to go to sea but all he did was read Chapman and a bunch of Hornblower books.

Im sure youll get to a point bern, Ive been waiting patiently. then spendi comes alomg and , in one breath says
\


GAAAH, what a pile of mental excrement. Were you gooned when you posted that?

What Spendius fails to understand are that scientists have no time to become politicians. They do the work, they publish it. The politicians may or may not see it and may or may not base their laws on it.

Furthermore, what proof do you have that scientists (a vague term at that) are attempting to control our nations?

Hm? Which scientists? Climate scientists, neurologists, ovarian cancer specialists, prostate cancer specialists, eye development specialists, cardiovascular, muscular scpecialists, pulmonary, pharmacologists, pathologists, geologists, astronomers, particle physicists, toxicologists, zoologists, sociologists... etc. etc.?

Aren't they allowed to tell the government how they think things should be done, based on their research? Do you wish them to shut up and not say a thing?

For the record, what I said was that the basic theory of evolution hinges upon the conception of genetic death and involves a cost of substitution which is in units of genetic death at each stage of any sort of an evolutionary process, and that at each stage of such a process, as a new trait is fixed at 100% in the population, the old stock is supposed to die out.

GIVEN that mistaken idea and ideology, what the nazis were doing was perfectly logical and reasonable; if the arrival on the scene of a new and supposedly superior racial stock guarantees the ultimate dieout of the older stocks, then you clearly are not doing the old stock any favors by prolonging the agony.

Nazi ideology was founded on what was viewed as the best science of the day, i.e. Darwinism. Whatever else those idiots were guilty of, which was a lot, they were not guilty of any sort of a breakdown in logic.

Then again, if you want to couch the thing in terms of individual behavior, there is always the famous quote from the noted former evolutionist Jeffrey Dahmer:




Dahmer converted to Christianity and renounced Chuck Darwin's bullshit before he died and those around him said it was real, so that there appears to actually be hope even for psychopaths.

fm-

I thought it quite witty actually. It was on topic,concise and I gave it a touch of human colour which I though might make it stick in the memory for a bit. There isn't a lot of point in writing anything if it is unlikely to stick in the readers memory as,I'm afraid, a fair number of your efforts fail do do in mine.

It is entirely predictable, and IDers are nothing if they are not predictable, that you would declare it to be "mental excrement". Unfortunately such subjective assertions hardly rise to meet the point however satisfying you find it to blurt them out. Not all readers will allow such declarations to represent the truth or even an approximation to the truth.

What is true is that it is an example of how anti-IDers conduct themselves in polite company, which is what one would expect to find on A2K even though you and I might not be considered in some quarters to qualify to be in their number.

My,my!!What time did you get out of bed. Had the dawn broke?

I have noticed a statistical correlation over the years between early rising and anti-ID ing with,obviously, a notable synchronicity linking IDing to dozing in the toasty charp-pit until some biological urge whips us into the frenzy of the daily grind. Preferring showers to long hot soaks is also a feature of the anti-ID personality. In fanatics it can sometimes run away as far as cold showers which are anathema to even half-baked IDers. I have heard of anti-IDers making love in snowdrifts but I can't quite bring myself to believe such imbecility.

There would be an intellectual justification for these observations.

Believers in God know that He designed us to be lazy,idle good-for-nothings like me so when they are dozing they don't have any guilt feelings because dozing has been divinely ordained and the Pope's not infallible for nothing.

On the other hand,non-believers either believe in nothing,which is hard to do if one wishes to be accepted socially,or they believe in things which have designed them for a more material purpose and such entities tend to be slave drivers and now that actual whips have been eliminated, more or less anyway, the instilling of guilt is brought forth, and from an early age, to stand in lieu.

When I am dozing with the windows open and the electric blankets on LOW/MEDIUM I can often hear in the distance the sound of wild activity and I think sometimes-what better reason than this does one need to believe in an all-powerful Deity and I also hope that HE's looking after the soul of Mr Faraday and his colleagues.

Chuck Darwin knew perfectly well what sort of a$$holes were going to get hold of his "theory" and what they were likely to do with it.

Putting a theory like that into the hands of the politicians of his day was like selling AK47s at ToysRUs outlets.

Preeeeebloodycisely!!

May I remind you two that far more people have been killed and oppressed because some bloody joker has gotten their hands on religion than people who have been killed in the name of Evolution?

Evolution does not lead to social Darwinism as you so claimed in your previous two posts. That particular claim is an example of the naturalistic fallacy -- the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But "is" does not imply "ought." Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.

Evolutionary theory shows us that the long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long-term survival in the event of environmental change. An understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long-term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.

So Jeffrey Dahmer is now your poster child for the type of people who convert to Christianity. Nice choice.

How 'bout you quit playing silly games about who believed what, and realize that it's irrelevant to factual science. Neither Christianity or Evolution are affected by Dahmer's choices.

Modern evolutionary theory stands completely on its own as the only scientific theory which matches the overwhelming mountains of evidence spread accross multiple scientific disciplines. Unless you can overcome *THAT*, you're wasting your breath.

You can start plinking away at little bits of evidence, but until you come up with an overwhelming mountain of *validated* plinkage, then your position is just entertainment fodder for Internet discussion, nothing more.

Wolf wrote-



Hang on Wolf. Everybody gets killed in the name of evolution. That's how it works. War is how social groups evolve. These "religions" are the flags under which more base instincts ride. It is the base instincts which have killed the lot and they evolved too didn't they? Death is the motor of evolution. According to Erich Fromm's Anatomy of Destructiveness Hitler was obsessed by death and he had baby manufacturing plants where the perfect specimens did the mating. And with Darwin's ideas in his head as Gunga said. Perhaps if you're not up with Hitler it might be that you're not all on board the good ship Darwin. And quite a luxury vessel she is.



No,no. Men of action don't take any notice of obtuse philosophical points.
They follow Darwin's thought. How would you explain red-light districts?
Evolution doesn't say how things ought to be--you're right--it tells how things jolly well will be. You think in too short a timescale. Darwin refers to unimaginable time scales. Natural evolution takes place so slowly that it is un-noticeable although you can do it a bit less slowly with fruit-flies and notice certain changes you might already be looking for in such an un-natural environment.

Cecil Rhodes famously said, when asked what should be done with the natives, "Fooshe 'em white." And he was a man of action.

How could Evolution lead,or not lead,to Social Evolution. Social evolution is a force in it's own right. It can't be thought of as a horse being led to water. It was going on long before Evolution Theory was invented as was evolution itself. They are linked. Symbiosis.

Sorry, but that is very far from obvious.

Starting from 1913, Europe had gone for about 100 years without a major war. They had the whole world by the balls and they were so fat and happy they didn't know what to do with themselves. They didn't even have to think; all they needed to do was go on having board meetins, formal balls, parades, Oktoberfests, and all the stuff they always used to do and they'd still have the whole world by the balls and be so fat and happy they wouldn't know what to do.

But we all know that didn't happen, don't we? They all listened to Chuck Darwin's fang and claw bullshit, embarked upon out of control arms races, two world wars, 70 years of a perverted communist experiment, over a hundred million deaths, and now they're messed up to the point of the entire continent being in real danger of being put under sharia law by slammite immigrants.

Pretty sad, isn't it? And none of it involved religion or was caused by religion.

Moreover, to find anything comparable in the history books you need to go straight back to Chengis Khan. The only thing close to being comparable in the interlude was the 30-years war and the only guy doing any killing in the name of religion which even starts to come close would be Tamerlane.

No one has ever been killed in the name of Evolution. When wars were fought, no one has ever invoked the name of evolution.



This is the weakest attempt of apologestics for religion I have ever seen. Blaming it on evolution, when clearly it was in the name of religion, is a foolish endeavour.



You didn't read my last post did you? You choose to ignore anything that contradicts your narrow-minded views.

Hitler restricted genetic variability. That's not evolution. That's preventing change from happening. He prevented his people from changing through evolution by ensuring there were no different alleles.



Quit playing your foolish games of blaming everything bad on Evolution. You stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to hear anything that contradicts your narrow-minded misinformed view, anything that might prove that things aren't as bad as you thought they were.



Easily with one word. Males.

Males are horny bastards. All rape cases are perpetrated by men. All sexual assault by men. All those advertisements that are "sexy" are targeted at men.



I told you before, but you chose to ignore my words.

Bury your head in the sand, Spendi, and live in your own delusional world of self-persecution.

That's BEEN overcome, over a period of decades. Nobody with any brains or talent or who keeps up with events is defending evolution any longer.

Delusional...

Bernard quoted-



That gives the jist of things.

I'm not familiar with the book. In fact,Im not familiar with Kuhn either.I read something about him and he makes a similar point. Professor Feyeraband says that adopting Kuhn's views,one could no longer assume that science accumulated facts,or that theories can be reduced,by approximation,to their more precise and more comprehensive successors.

I think he thinks it a clique which is trying to blind us all with science for the usual reasons. I put my shades on to read some posts. They are spending more and more tax dollars to find out less and less important things, as I have previously pointed out, and they are worried about being sidelined because they are not used to other sorts of work and may even be unfitted for any. They have done us proud though and they deserve our thanks for having discovered all the important things in the physical world.

Yup.

gunga

May I respectfully add HISTORY to the myriad of topics of which you know NOTHING.


Were up to the following:

History
Medicine
Biology
Geology
Paleo
Cosmology
Gardening

gunga said
Youve gotta get out more. I hear that they even have inside plumbing in Sullivan County

The thing about evolution which throws nearly all people with anything resembling brains or talent is simple enough to describe. It has to do with miracle counts.

In the bible, both testaments, there is some finite number of stories about miracles, and that number is probably between 20 and 50.

Evolution on the other hand requires endless sequences of probabilistic miracles, i.e. outright zero probability events and violations of probabilistic laws.

Any single complex kind of creature pretty much requires a nearly endless series of such probabilistic miracles, and there is an almost endless series of such creatures which have lived in the Earths history.

Believing in evolution requres the idiot trying to do it to pretty much toss everything we know about modern math and probability theory in the toilet and flush it on down.

An argument from disbelief is a non-argument.



You still playing that broken record? I thought we showed you that Haldane's Dilemma is a non-dilemma, and that his calculations were wrong.

Is it any wonder we go round in circles, if you insist on flogging a dead horse? Wait... I think I've got my analogies crossed over...

In 1813, Napoleon's Grande Armée had been recruited back to near full strength, after the Russian disaster, by bringing in the classes of 1814 and 1815--in other words, they were drafting the teen agers to make up the loss of nearly half a millions in 1812, if one includes the losses in Spain. Spain was the unstaunchable bleeding wound which finally brought down the French empire, but that is usually missed by the shallow reader of history because of the larger events elsewhere. But Napoleon still had to be dealt with, and a Leipsic in 1813, the Battle of the Nations was fought--the largest battle of the Napoleonic wars. More than a half-a-million combatants were involved, never mind support troops. Napoleon lost--in the Wagram campaign of 1809 and in Spain and Russia, the veteran company grade and field grade officers and non-commissioned officers who had made the French the most modern and effective soldiers on earth had been lost--the French relied up blunt attacks with columns of untrained, inexperienced troops. The winter of 1813-14 saw Napoleon fight the finest campaign which he ever personally conducted against the Austro-Prusso-Russian invasion of France. But the Allies gathered their courage, and his governmental lackeys lost their courage, resulting in the fall of Paris, and Napoleon's eventual exile on the island of Elba. He came back in 1815, and in what Wellington described as "a damned close run thing," the English and the Prussians just managed to defeat him again.

The result of the fall of Napoleon for Spain was the rise of Liberal and secularist government under Isabell II. Don Carlos lead the reactionary revolution against her government, and the Carlistas and the Isabellistas fought a civil war in Spain off an on from 1833 to 1876. The reactionary element remained such a disruptive force in the Spanish polity even after 1876, that the supporters of Franco in the Spanish civil war who were not members of the Falange were known as Carlists.

What we know of as Belgium was under the control of the Dutch after the 1815 settlement, and the discontent of the Flemish and the Waloons under Dutch rule lead to insurrection in 1830--a monarchical republic was declared in 1831. The Dutch invaded in 1831, a war in which France threatened to intervene, until the English managed to wangle a settlement at the 1832 London Conference.

The Congress of Vienna of 1815 had imposed a reactionary, monarchical settlement on Europe, under which the people simmered with resentment. In 1848, Socialist uprisings broke out all over Europe, leading to the first Paris Commune and the fall of the "republican King," Louis Philippe. The "Holy Alliance" of Russia, Prussia and Austria ruthlessly crushed the uprisings in Germany, Italy and Poland, leading to a huge wave of emmigration to France, England and the United States. The "Forty-eighters" among the Germans in America formed a significant part of Mr. Lincoln's Army, and Franz Sigel, Louis Blenker and Carl Schurz rose to high rank in the Federal Armies.

In Italy, there were uprisings against the reactionary rule of Austria and the corrupt Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and the Piedmont Kingdom from 1820 to 1866. Manzini, Cavour and Garibaldi all became heroes of the Italians for their fight for Italian independence. After the fall of Louis Philippe in France, he was briefly succeeded by his son, but finally a republic was declared in 1850. The year had not run out when Louis Bonaparte, the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, lead a coup which toppled the Republic and established the Second Empire, with Louis declaring himself the Emperor Napoleon III. His invasion of Italy in 1859, with the horribly bloody battles of Solferino and Magenta broke the back of Austrian power in Italy, leading to the successful revolutionary movement of Cavour and Garibaldi.

In 1853, a stupid squabble between Roman Catholic monks (backed by France and Napoleon III) and Orothodox monks (backed by Russian and Nicholas I) over the keys to the church in Bethlehem were the putative Christ was alleged to have been born lead to a confrontation between Turkey and Russia, and the war which is popularly known as the Crimean War. France convinced Turkey that Europe would back their play, and managed to drag the English in. Austria was convinced to stand aside. The Emperor Nicholas I of Russia was the most reactionary of three monarchs of the Holy Alliance, with his slogan "One Tsar, one Church, one Russia." He was not long-lived, but he lived long enough for the Chechens and the Ingush to attempt to take advantage of the war and attempt to rise against Russian rule. That war has had its pauses, but the Chechens and the Ingush have been fighting against Russian rule ever since. The Kingdom of Sardinia (an island south of Corsica) sent the Piedmontese Army (the north-western part of Italy was part of the Kingdom) to fight with the English, and they performed well. Many of the veterans fought with Garibaldi in 1860.

I will leave out the Franco-Belgian invasion of Mexico, as it did not take place in Europe. I will note that Germany attacked and defeated Demark over Schleswig and Holstein in 1864, and then in 1866, fought and defeated Austria for control of Germany. Eventually, Bismark cobbled together an excuse to attack Napoleon III and France in Franco-Prussian War of 1870.

Bismark called the Congress of Berlin in 1878 to avert war between Turkey and Russia (the situation in the Balkans having been destablized by the 1853 Russo-Turkish War, the "Crimean War"), as Greece attacked Turkey and Montenegro and Bulgaria declared their independence. I will simply point to the First Balkan War and the Second Balkan War.

That's Gunga Din's one hundred years without a major war. Now watch him dance to assert that these were not major events. If that's one hundred years of peace, Dog forbid that Europe ever experience a hundred years of war.