"Genetic Death": The Evolution Meat Grinder

Evolution is based on fear and ignorance. Try educating yourself instead of spouting platitudes:

http://evolutionisimpossible.com/

Fear of what?

Great post Gunga-

It makes a very welcome change to some of the infantile spouting one sees so much of from those who don't know their arse from their elbow nor which side their bread is buttered on.

There's nothing like a simple idea to which fancy,invidious language can be applied to hypnotise wannabee intellectuals.

Actually,it is a sort of replay of how birth control was brought in from about 1880 at the behest of the rubber industry. Some of the assertions used to discredit the methods that had been used for thousands of years were as daft as some one sees on here.

ros wrote-



Of mystery. Of the unknown. Of not being in control. Of the thought that there are things that go way over one's head.

I've read more history than you've ever seen on the bookshelves, apparently. Like most people with a puerile view of history, you think that only military history has any significance, and you measure the importance of historical events by the body count.

Your statement does not alter my criticism of your thesis. You purport that Europeans learned fear of total war from the Mongols, and therefore sought ever after to avoid it. You give the lie to that yourself by your vague reference to the Thirty Years War, something else about which you apparently know little. You were either ignorant of, or sufficiently clueless about the historical significance of, the harrying of the Rhineland in the wars of Louis XIV, and the harrying of Bavaria in the War of the Spanish Succession, and the devastation of East Prussia in the Seven Years War not to know that such examples of "total war" proliferated after the Thirty Years War.

That Liegnitz was not the main event does not alter the fact that the Mongols and their proxies never pushed farther west than Poland, Hungary and the Sinai. The Mongols could dispose of about 150,000 fighters, most of whom were not Mongols. The bulk of their available forces who were not Mongols were Tatars and Turkic-speaking tribesmen from Central Asia, and most of them were under the titular authority of Batu Kahn. The Mongol "empire" was never a unitary structure as were the Chinese and Roman empires. The death of Ogedei lead Subutai and Hulegu to head east for the disputation of the succession. Of the 150,000 available troops, about 20,000 had gone into Poland, and the survivors (very likely, not more than 10,000 or 12,000--Liegnitz as a phyrric victory) went back east with Subutai (who i believe was not actually present at Liegnitz). Along with them went some of the roughly 80,000 under the control of Batu Kahn. The Mamluks stopped the Mongols and their proxies in the Sinai, and those troops went back east with Hulegu. Batu Kahn also returned to his "Great Khanate," as the internal administrative units of the Mongol "empire" are known. Batu Kahn intended to renew the invasion of Europe and attack Vienna, but his death in 1255 ended that project, and the Tatars eventually invaded the subcontinent. Europe was never again threatened. Therefore, your contention that Europeans learned of and learned to abhor "total war" from the Mongols is an unfounded statement.

Spendi's irrelevant reference to "posh history" applies much more to your silly statement which suggested that Europe form 1813 to 1913 was a place of ignorant complacency and brass bands than it does to my having simply pointed out that Europe was not free from major war in that period. On the topic of evolution, that century in Europe's history is of far greater importance than your silly statement implies, in that it is the period in which socialism, communism and the collapse of monarchical absolutism evolved. The movement for self-determination in Europe, inspired by the American revolution and the French revolution grew apace in that hundred years, and lead to civil war in Spain over the issue of reform and liberalism, insurrection and war in Italy over self-determination, socialist uprisings in France and Germany over the issue of self-determination, and revolution and insurrection in the Balkans over the issue of self-determination. I don't expect, though, that you will understand that, because your focus on history seems to be who inflicted the greatest slaughter in any given war. The Wars of the Roses in England never involved more than a few thousand men on a side, and many "battles" measured the opponents in hundreds rather than thousands. Nevertheless, it marked the beginning of the end of royal authority in England--more than half of the families of the peerage were extinguished in the direct male line, and when Henry Tudor had defeated Richard III, he cemented his authority by appeal to Parliament. The rise of Parliament as the principal authority in England can be dated to the end of the Wars of the Roses. By your measure of carnage, it was unimportant. By any reasonable historical measure, it was a major war.

It is the reverse. The rejection of Natural Selection that is based on fear and ignorance and all the snake has done is project his/her world view on those who do not accept it. Natural Selection is nothing more than a systematic, reality based, explanation of how the biological world works. It assumes ignorance of some part of that process and further assumes that that ignorance can be solved by the application of further systematic observation. Nothing in science is absolute whereas in the snake's world there are absolutes that can not be questioned for fear that the entire explanatory edifice will come down leaving him/her exposed to the world he/she has no way of explaining. This is a world view founded on fear, ignorance and paranoia.

Hear hear . . .

Setanta wrote-



Maybe,but could not the same result have been achieved by gentlemanly negotiation. Thus the war,which was,as you say, a minor matter, due to stubborn vested interest and hence a function of human nature. No doubt large numbers of inchoate wars have been settled by negotiation before hostlities broke out and the history books would hardly cover such things as they are not dramatic enough and ,worse, much more difficult to understand than winning and losing which contains features which lend themselves to all sorts of posturings.

When referring to war as history, you should address yourself to Gunga Din. Any contention that succession disputes could be settled among the disputants by diplomacy which were not imposed from outside by threat of force is just silly. And, of course, does not apply to the Wars of the Roses.

Acqu wrote-



Are human beings in modern society biological entities?

Do you think our sumptuous lifestyle could have been achieved under the principles of Natural Selection,The Struggle for Existence and The Survival of the Fittest?

I thing evolutionists have a fear of understanding the society they live in because such an understanding leads one to conclude what hopeless,inconsequential little toss pots we all are.

It must be a face-saver for political eunuchs. It is certainly surreal for non-specialists to concern themselves with these matters when they live out their lives in straight contradiction to evolutionary theory.

Denial..... I mean, we just saw that wasn't the case, didn't we?

Natural selection is an agency of stasis and not of change; it is a destructive process and not a constructive one.

You could no more create a new species with natural selection than you could create a skyscraper with a wrecking ball.

The actual theory of evolution says that new species arise via combinations of mutation and, at each step of such a process, natural selection weeds out all the unfit mutations.

Only problem is, we don't see it and that's because it doesn't happen; the whole thing is a bunch of bullshit.

You couldn't devise a stupider doctrine. Darwin might in fact have been acting on orders from God to devise a doctrine so stupid, that nobody could feel sorry for anybody who bought off on it on account of what happens to them.

Evolution in a synonym for the word change. The process that you fear is Natural Selection. Not only can we see it, we manipulate it, selective breeding being the most traditional. We also have to deal with it, drug resistant microbes being the most common.

Wrong. Illogical and wrong.



The evidence clearly demonstrates that this is incorrect.



We all know you are wrong. The only interesting thing left for us to do is study your lunacy for entertainment. So tell us, *why* do you fear evolution so much that your brain is in complete denial of the blindingly obvious?

At least with the religious people we know what they are afraid of. But you seem to prefer some type of alien intervention. Are you just desperate to know that there are aliens out there?

Mutations are relatively rare, positive mutations rarer still. Mutations are not a major factor in the process of Natural Selection.

Natural selection work on the basis of the natural genetic variation that occurs in any species. Some of that variation will confer a selective advantage on some individuals who will be better fed, reproduce more, and live longer. Over time the individuals with that variation will come to make up a majority of the population of that species.

Natural selection is a numbers game and nothing more. There is no "weeding out", it has no direction, and it has no purpose. It is simply a responsive process and that I suspect is what you fear, its purely utilitarian function. This make humans different, in fact very different, than any other species on this planet, but not unique or better.

That would be the Sir Arthur Keith who, in his 1911 Ancient Types of Man and his 1915 The Antiquity of Man, held modern humans to be equally ancient as extinct homonids, and who was among the key propononents of Piltdown Man.


Great source, Gunga.

BTW, Gunga - the central and insuperable error of your postulate is that evolution is a survival mechanism - it comes about as a resullt of adaptive success, the propagation of life frorms which prosper, not due to failed life forms, which take themselves out of the equation by the fact of their extinction. What works is that is which is selected, and is passed on, so long as it works as well as or better than alternate solutions. Simple competition; there always will be winners, which means there as well always must be losers.

Setanta wrote-



Can you really not prevent yourself from declaring "silly" anything with which you don't agree or have not previously given your approval to?

Can't you understand what such moronic posturings do to the perception others have of you. It is as if you have never taken part in a real debate before and content yourself with emptying your lungs at cowed people who's company you must seek for that very purpose.

Can't you even see that it is meaningless by being 100% tautological. It is something grown ups laugh at.

It seems shite English to me as well because the "were" leads to an ambiguity and also more laughter.

And anyway-threat of force is not war.

Avid readers of war history often fail to realise how many potential wars were prevented by good sense and thus get a distorted view of things.

Suppose life is all the same in some way and there are no mutations by natural selection and the process of it.

It is changing environments and those mould the life form. The mutations,and I would guess we are all mutations in some way,simply fit better and the female of the good-fit species may have a mysterious way of selecting the correct mutation from the 200,000,000 possibilities. It is more I gather with prize bulls.

I'll bet you never thought of the possibilty of that after they've had six double gins and a pint of lager.

Those species where the female lays a lot of eggs get thinned out later like in the famous turtle rush to the sea which I'm sure everyone has seen which saves me having to describe it and prevents this post going on any longer that is absulutely necessary for the purpose of raising a simple possibilty for the consideration of fellow threaders.

You're the experts- is that a possibility?

A sort of series of sieves of unimaginable height, as Darwin would have said, on the environmental shaking table for an unimaginable length of time. What comes out of the bottom is what makes it through all the holes which are not all perfectly round.

What is this obsession with mutations? Mutations have very little to do with the process of natural Selection. Most specie posess sufficient genetic variation to facilitate the process with out them.