|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Why I Don’t Believe the Theory of Evolution 2
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 @ Vic; True Science v. Scientism The American Scientific Affiliation Two things unite the members of the ASA: 1) belief in orthodox Christianity and 2) a commitment to mainstream science. ASA members are dedicated to promoting ethically and methodologically sound research and dialogue network.asa3.org Another point/ issue which I think would be good for discussion; What are your thoughts on "scientism" and "Christian fundamentalism"? A quick reading for these say scientism holds that ONLY reason and empirical evidence can answer the questions about our world; and Christian fundamentalism holds that ONLY the way to understand the Bible is through a literal reading of the text. High of these views are not only prejudiced and extreme, but they take no account for the Bible's inerrancy and that true scientific investigations and study, W/O preconceived notions will substantiate the Biblical narrative. Hasn't that been your experience/ understanding? The ASA invites anyone interested in discussing their work - which covers a wide variety of scientific disciplines - to become a member. Access to the papers/ studies which scientists write about requires a nominal membership fee. Perhaps you would be interested in looking at some of what scientists with a Biblical worldview are discovering? |
|||||||||||||||
|
@VF But I have to say I’m not that interested in the creation account in Genesis or in creation science. I am interested in the theory of evolution, but only because it mystifies me that so many people believe life originated in a single-celled organism floating in the ocean and that an unguided process of increasing order and increasing complexity over hundreds of millions of years led to millions of species of plants and animals, and humans. It’s just so preposterous that I can’t believe anyone actually believes it. But then I realize it serves as a justification for atheism and naturalism, and why people believe it starts to make sense. But I think most people who believe the theory of evolution have never looked into it. And I think many scientists (justifiably) are afraid to speak out against it because they don’t want to risk their reputations and careers. The reaction of evolutionists on here to anyone criticizing the theory is not unique. I think the number of people who genuinely believe molecule-to-man evolution AND who have looked into it without bias and with an open mind are pretty small, in my opinion. I do believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, though I don’t think the days are 24-hour days as the Hebrew word for “day” can mean an indefinite period of time. I also think God exists outside of time… “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” (Psalm 90:4) “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” (2 Peter 3:8) …and that time was created by God, but how that fits into the creation account in Genesis is not mentioned. So anyway, that’s my long way of saying thanks for the info and I will check it out, though it might not be for a while. Have a blessed day ✝️ 🙏 |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtu.be Video is 7:18 From the video description: <<Are we simply robots made out of meat? Or is there an inescapable “I” who makes real choices that can change our lives? This episode of Science Uprising (Mind: The Inescapable I) challenges claims by materialists like Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett that humans are simply robots without free will. Be sure to visit scienceuprising.com to find more videos and explore related articles and books. People featured in this episode include Michael Egnor, MD, a Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at Stony Brook University; and Jeffrey Schwartz, MD, a Research Psychiatrist at UCLA and author of many books such as The Mind and the Brain, Brain Lock, and You Are Not Your Brain. Dr. Jeffrey M. Schwartz is a research psychiatrist at the School of Medicine at the University of California at Los Angeles and one of the world’s leading experts in neuroplasticity. Decades ago, he began to study the philosophy of conscious awareness, the idea that the actions of the mind have an effect on the workings of the brain. Jeff’s breakthrough work in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) provided the hard evidence that the mind can control the brain’s chemistry. He has lectured extensively to both professional and lay audiences in the US, Europe, and Asia. Jeff’s books include The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force and the bestseller Brain Lock: Free Yourself from Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, the seminal book on OCD. Learn more about his research and writing on the brain and neuroplasticity at jeffreymschwartz.com Michael Egnor, MD (from Columbia University), neurosurgeon and professor of neurological surgery at Stony Brook University. Dr. Egnor is renowned for his work in pediatric neurosurgery. His practice includes patients diagnosed with Arnold Chiari deformity, hydrocephalus, cranio-synostosis, brain tumors, and spina bifida, as well as children with severe head trauma. He has an international reputation for research on hydrocephalus, and he is on the Scientific Advisory Board of the Hydrocephalus Association in the United States. See www.thesun.co.uk.... >> |
|||||||||||||||
|
Anyway, I said I’d find the article I previously posted in which evolutionists say Darwin’s tree of life is nonsense, and here it is. It was published 14 years ago, and it’s only gotten worse for Darwinists since. <<Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life Evolutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches Charles Darwin's "tree of life", which shows how species are related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists. The great naturalist first sketched how species might evolve along branches of an imaginary tree in 1837, an idea that quickly came to symbolise the theory of evolution by natural selection. But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket. Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank". "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine. Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled "web of life". Microbes swap genetic material so promiscuously it can be hard to tell one type from another, but animals regularly crossbreed too - as do plants - and the offspring can be fertile. According to some estimates, 10 per cent of animals regularly form hybrids by breeding with other species. Last year, scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington found a strange chunk of DNA in the genetic make-up of eight animals, including the mouse, rat and the African clawed frog. The same chunk is missing from chickens, elephants and humans, suggesting it must have become wedged into the genomes of some animals by crossbreeding. The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.">> www.theguardian.com The fossil record doesn’t support Darwin’s theory. Nor is the “tree of life” viable evidence. What do you guys have left to support molecule-to-man evolution? |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules.>> <<Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.>>… www.thethirdwayofevolution.com …I started to wonder what evidence exists to support evolution occurring by the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations and natural selection. Leave aside Darwin’s (imo) evidence-free claim that life originated in a single-celled organism floating in the ocean (which I think is ridiculous.) But Darwinian evolution proposed a specific mechanism by which evolution was thought to occur. How much evidence exists to support the mechanism of random mutations and natural selection? Based on the “waiting time” problem and astronomical odds of evolution occurring in such a slow, happenstance manner, I would be surprised if any credible evidence exists to support random mutations and natural selection as the driving force behind the creation of new species. |
|||||||||||||||
|
• Occurs by random mutations and natural selection. (What’s the evidence that evolution happens in that way?) • Started from a single-celled organism. (What’s the evidence for that?) Those are the two pillars of the theory of evolution, or Neo-Darwinism. You know why I think evolutionists on here believe both of those but won’t present evidence for them? Because they both get rid of God and evidence doesn’t exist to support either. <<The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules.>> www.thethirdwayofevolution.com GK evolutionists simply don’t know enough to say whether it’s realistic to assume other mechanisms of evolution occur by chance and are naturalistic, and not until they believe the alternative mechanisms of evolution in this paragraph from the Third Way of Evolution’s website… <<Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications.>> …can occur from and in a purely naturalistic way will they loosen their embrace of Darwin and the theory of evolution. |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<Mutations of DNA do not occur as randomly as previously assumed, according to new research from Max Planck Institute for Biology Tübingen in Germany and University of California Davis in the US. The findings have the potential to dramatically change our view of evolution. The insights have far-reaching implications, from better knowledge of crop domestication to predictions of the mutational landscape in cancers. Evolution is primarily fueled by mutations, which arise when DNA is damaged and left unrepaired. Darwin’s theory of evolution bases its main tenet on the premise that genes emerge randomly and that only natural selection can control which genes change more rapidly and which more slowly as time progresses. This fundamental assumption has now been disproved. “We always thought of mutations appearing solely by chance across the genome,” says Grey Monroe, an assistant professor in the UC Davis Department of Plant Sciences and first author of the paper. “It now turns out that the pattern of mutation is not only very non-random, but also that it’s non-random in a way that benefits the plant.” “This is a completely novel perspective on mutation and the way evolution works,” comments Detlef Weigel, scientific director at the Max Planck Institute for Biology and senior author of the study.>> scitechdaily.com How long before Darwin’s claim that life began as a single-celled organism in the ocean is blown out of the water? (Pun unintended) |
|||||||||||||||
|
are often 'directed', for example 'away' from areas encoding absolutely essential proteins. DNA and RNA repair mechanisms (repairing mutational errors) work differently in different areas of the genome.>> Amazing (and disappointing) to me how many evolutionists will twist themselves into a pretzel to try to prove Darwin (1859) is still credible. He got it wrong! Just accept it! That doesn’t mean evolution doesn’t take place. That doesn’t mean God exists. But get off your Darwin fixation and allegiance - He’s wrong. |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<Here, we can start from what we may call the 'Darwinian dogma', viz. natural selection after spontaneously occurring (random) variations (Darwin had no knowledge of genes or DNA). Today, 164 years after the publication of 'On the Origin of Species', we know that Darwin's 'variations' are due to mutations in DNA. More recently, we also know that such mutations aren't actually always random (see my post above at 21:05) with respect to the evolutionary 'goal'.>> The key sentence… <<More recently, we also know that such mutations aren't actually always random (see my post above at 21:05) with respect to the evolutionary 'goal'…>> A group of scientists whose specialty IS evolution… <<The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations.>> “aren’t actually always random” is obviously not the same as… “does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations.” I would love to see/hear the evidence that random mutations contribute *anything* toward an evolutionary “goal.” Perhaps it exists, perhaps it doesn’t. I asked the scientist on here (who recently initiated PMs with me on this subject) if evidence existed that evolution occurred by random mutations and natural selection, which is what Darwin (and later Neo-Darwinists) claim. I haven’t received a reply - and suspect I never will. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Interesting (but predictably so) how many statements and conclusions by evolutionists turn out to be completely wrong after further research. Why make conclusions prematurely? Evolutionary dogma, pure and simple. Keep thinking you‘re an animal related to apes, fellas - and use that as an excuse for your abysmal behavior. <<Does the Scientific Evidence Support Evolutionary Models of Human Origins? An obvious benefit of [the Theistic Evolution / Evolutionary Creation] model is that it is fully compatible with mainstream evolutionary science. However, in denying the existence of a historical Adam and Eve, it explicitly rejects major traditional theological beliefs about human origins, which will not be acceptable to many seeking to preserve those beliefs (Grudem 2017a, 2017b). Before accepting the TE/EC model, those who value these major traditional theological beliefs may wish to first consider the extent to which scientific evidence against the existence of Adam and Eve and in favor of human evolution is as open and shut as is being claimed. Fossil Evidence First, the fossil record shows a distinct break between the apelike australopithecines, which are supposedly directly ancestral to our genus Homo, and the first humanlike members of the genus Homo (Luskin 2022). Such evidence has led to observations from mainstream evolutionists conceding that there is a “large, unbridged gap” between humanlike members of Homo and the australopithecines (Mayr 2004, p. 198), which required a “genetic revolution” since “no australopithecine species is obviously transitional” (Hawks et al. 2000, p. 4), and implies a “big bang” model of human origins (University of Michigan News Service 2000). While evolutionary paleoanthropologists generally believe that “the transition from Australopithecus to Homo was undoubtedly one of the most critical in its magnitude and consequences,” they admit that “many details of this transition are obscure because of the paucity of the fossil and archaeological records” (Lieberman et al. 2009, p. 1). This lack of fossil evidence for the evolution of the humanlike body plan in the fossil record weakens the necessity of adopting standard evolutionary explanations of human origins. Genetic Evidence Genomic comparisons between humans and chimpanzees are becoming more sophisticated, with recent proposals proposing lower estimates of human–chimp genetic similarity estimates to between 84 percent and 96 percent (Buggs 2018c; Seaman and Buggs 2020). It is also unclear how any percent similarity between human and chimp DNA yields an argument that requires common ancestry (Luskin 2022). Junk DNA genetic arguments for common human–ape ancestry have also come under significant critique in recent years due to the discovery of mass-functionality for non-coding or “junk” DNA in the human genome. A major 2012 Nature paper by the ENCODE consortium reported “biochemical functions for 80%” of the human genome (ENCODE Project Consortium 2012, p. 57). Lead ENCODE scientists predicted that with further research, “80 percent will go to 100” since “almost every nucleotide is associated with a function.” (Yong 2012). In the wake of this research, the journal Science published an article titled “ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA” which stated that these findings “sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases” (Pennisi 2012, p. 1159). Evidence of functions for non-coding DNA has continued to mount at a high pace. A 2021 article in Nature reported that over 130,000 specific “genomic elements, previously called junk DNA” have seen specific functions identified (Gates et al. 2021, p. 215), followed by a paper in Genome Biology and Evolution which concluded, “The days of ‘junk DNA’ are over” (Stitz et al. 2021, p. 11). There is still much we do not understand about the genome and there are many specific genetic elements for which no function has yet been discovered. Nonetheless, this evidence suggests a strong trendline in the research literature away from non-functionality for “junk” DNA. One frequently mentioned example of junk DNA is pseudogenes, which TE/EC advocates commonly cite as “the mutated remains of once-functional genes” (Venema and Falk 2010) that show our common ancestry with apes. Yet, a 2012 paper found pseudogene function is “widespread,” and since “the study of functional pseudogenes is just at the beginning” it predicted “more and more functional pseudogenes will be discovered as novel biological technologies are developed” (Wen et al. 2012, p. 31). Indeed, the literature is now replete with papers reporting functions for pseudogenes (Hirotsune et al. 2003; Pain et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2006; Tam et al. 2008; Piehler et al. 2008; Poliseno et al. 2010; Muro et al. 2011; Rapicavoli et al. 2013; Ji et al. 2015; Hayashi et al. 2015; Prieto-Godino et al. 2016; Suzuki et al. 2018; Fiddes et al. 2018; Habib et al. 2019), including producing functional RNA transcripts or performing functions without producing any RNA (Poliseno 2012). A 2012 paper notes that although “pseudogenes have long been dismissed as junk DNA,” recent advances have established that “the DNA of a pseudogene, the RNA transcribed from a pseudogene, or the protein translated from a pseudogene can have multiple, diverse functions,” concluding that “pseudogenes have emerged as a previously unappreciated class of sophisticated modulators of gene expression” (Poliseno 2012, pp. 1, 10). Indeed, many pseudogenes are known to produce proteins, with a study in Nature reporting “more than 200 peptides that are encoded by 140 pseudogenes” (Kim et al. 2014, p. 579). There are good reasons to understand why DNA labeled a “pseudogene” is now turning out to have a function. Pseudogenes are often identified by comparison to some other similar gene sequences encoding a functional protein from which the pseudogene is thought to have been derived and subsequently degenerated. However, regulatory functions of pseudogenes often require them to have some sequence similarity (homology) to their protein-coding counterparts so their RNA transcripts can interact with transcripts from the protein-coding gene, thereby regulating protein production (Salmena et al. 2011). Therefore, the reason our genomes contain sequences that resemble protein-coding-genes but do not produce proteins is not because they are discarded evolutionary “pseudogenes,” but because they are designed that way as important genomic regulatory and control elements. Many papers have criticized the assumption that pseudogenes are functionless junk DNA and now suggest abandoning the term (Pink et al. 2011; Poliseno 2012; Wen et al. 2012; Kovalenko and Patrushev 2018; Troskie et al. 2021). A 2020 paper in Nature Reviews Genetics observes, “Where pseudogenes have been studied directly they are often found to have quantifiable biological roles,” and warns that “the dominant limitation in advancing the investigation of pseudogenes now lies in the trappings of the prevailing mindset that pseudogenic regions are intrinsically non-functional.” It cautions that pseudogene function is “prematurely dismissed” due to “dogma” (Cheetham et al. 2020). There are prominent examples of prematurely dismissing pseudogene function, only to be proven wrong later. During the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, biologist Kenneth Miller testified that our beta-globin pseudogene is “broken” because it has “molecular errors that render the gene non-functional,” indicating humans share a common ancestor with apes (Miller 2005, p. 79). Two years later, leading evolution advocate Eugenie Scott claimed this pseudogene “isn’t going to do diddly. It’s just going to sit there” and “not do a thing” (Scott 2007). However, a 2013 study reported that this precise pseudogene is functional (Moleirinho et al. 2013), and a 2021 study found it is “essential” and has “indispensability” for human red blood cell formation (Ma et al. 2021, pp. 478, 490). Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are another class of “junk” DNA commonly cited by TE/ECs in favor of human/ape common ancestry. The structure of the arguments here is similar to those used for pseudogenes: ERVs also show widespread evidence of function, particularly gene regulatory roles (Conley et al. 2008; Jacques et al. 2013; Chuong 2018; Robson and Mundlos 2019; Jönsson et al. 2021; Sakashita et al. 2023), and their similarity to viral DNA may exist for functional reasons, as they are involved in immune-functions to repel viral infections (Badarinarayan and Sauter 2021). Again, it is true that there is still much we do not know about junk DNA and there are many specific genetic elements (including pseudogenes and ERVs) for which specific functions have not yet been discovered. However, recent trends in research show that far more functionality is being discovered than was anticipated, leading to the possibility of mass functionality for junk DNA. As a 2023 academic book on RNA states: While the story is still unfolding, we conclude that the genomes of humans and other complex organisms are not full of junk but rather are highly compact information suites that are largely devoted to the specification of regulatory RNAs. These RNAs drive the trajectories of differentiation and development, underpin brain function and convey transgenerational memory of experience, much of it contrary to long-held conceptions of genetic programming and the dogmas of evolutionary theory. MATTICK AND AMARAL 2023, P. VII. If noncoding/junk DNA is in fact functional, then genetic similarities could be the result of common design due to the need to meet similar functional requirements. Even Francis Collins has acknowledged that shared genetic similarity “alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor” because “such similarities could simply demonstrate that God used successful design principles over and over again” (Collins 2006, p. 134). Population Genetics Third, arguments against Adam and Eve based upon human genetic diversity and population genetics seem to have been undermined by subsequent modeling analyses. One of the first scientific responses to this population-genetics argument against Adam and Eve was published in 2012, when biologist Ann Gauger, a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute (a pro-intelligent-design think tank, where this author also works), reported that genetic diversity in HLA genes — some of the most diverse genes in the human genome — could still be explained if we originated from an initial couple (Gauger et al. 2012, p. 120). After the publication of Adam and the Genome in 2017, biologist Dennis Venema was engaged on the BioLogos discussion forum by Richard Buggs, a geneticist at Queen Mary University London. During the discussion Venema acknowledged that various papers he had cited as having refuted the existence of Adam and Eve had not actually addressed the question of whether humanity descended from an initial couple (Buggs 2017). From this discussion emerged a consensus among various Christian biologists that if an initial pair of humans lived far enough in the past, then modern human genetic diversity could in fact be accounted for by natural biological processes. Eventually, Buggs stated to Venema: “You would do your readers a service if you wrote a blog to tell them now, as far as you are able, that present day genomic diversity in humans does not preclude a bottleneck in the human lineage between approx 700 K and 7myr ago. I think you owe this to them” (Buggs 2018b). (The bottleneck he refers to is the human population being reduced to two individuals — effectively the same as humanity descending from Adam and Eve.) Venema then publicly acknowledged the veracity of Buggs’s critique, replying: “I’ve already agreed with this….You’re welcome to publicize it” (Venema 2018). Buggs later summarized this conversation on his blog with Nature Ecology and Evolution, reporting that the question was no longer whether a historical Adam and Eve could have existed, but rather at what point in time they lived (Buggs 2018a). Gauger along with Ola Hössjer, a professor of mathematics at the University of Stockholm, had already begun a project to address how deep into the past an initial couple had to live in order to account for modern human genetic diversity. They published a series of papers developing and testing a population genetics model which allows for an initial pair of humans to be given “designed variants” of genes representing “primordial diversity” built into the initial genomes of Adam and Eve. Under their model, natural biological processes then govern the subsequent genetic history of the human race. They showed that modern-day human genetic diversity can be explained by a single pair of ancestors — e.g., what one might call Adam and Eve — provided that they lived at least 500,000 years ago (Hössjer et al. 2016a, 2016b; Hössjer and Gauger 2019). S. Joshua Swamidass, a Christian scholar and professor of computational biology at Washington University in St. Louis, performed an analysis that yielded a similar result, finding that Adam and Eve could have lived 495,000 years ago as our sole genetic progenitors (Swamidass 2017). There is another population genetics argument relevant to human origins — but this one is posed as a mathematical challenge to unguided evolutionary models. The MRCA of humans and chimpanzees is said to have lived approximately 4 to 6 million years ago (Wood and Harrison 2011). Though estimates vary, a reasonable accounting proposes that the genetic differences between humans and chimps amount to some “35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels [sequences of multiple nucleotide bases] in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans” (Cohen 2007). Yet, a population genetics study in the journal Genetics found that if just two specific mutations were required to provide some evolutionary advantage in the line that led to humans, then “this type of change would take >100 million years,” which was determined to be “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale” (Durrett and Schmidt 2008). This “waiting times” problem (Hössjer et al. 2021) suggests there may be far too little time available from the fossil record for standard unguided evolutionary mechanisms to generate observed genetic, morphological, and behavioral differences between humans and chimps. Some have proposed intelligent design as a possible explanation for the rapid appearance of biological information necessary to overcome the waiting times problem and generate these complex traits (Thorvaldsen and Hössjer 2020).>> evolutionnews.org |
|||||||||||||||
|
But these same evolutionists turn a blind eye to the blatant misogyny of Darwin and those who support his theory. <<Any list of toxic male behavior includes disrespect for women, and Darwin bears some responsibility for that as well. He was convinced that males are superior to females — that man attains “a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman.” He concluded that “the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” Darwin explained male superiority by proposing that among social animals, young males have to pass through many contests to win a female — and many additional battles to retain their females. Over time, he said, natural selection will favor the stronger, more courageous males. Although modern men do not literally fight for a mate, he wrote, yet they generally have to undergo, during manhood, a severe struggle in order to maintain themselves and their families; and this will tend to keep up or even increase their mental powers, and, as a consequence, the present inequality between the sexes. By contrast, Darwin wrote, women at home nurturing the young are out of reach of natural selection; thus they have evolved more slowly and their mental powers are lower. (It was assumed in his day that males pass on more of their traits to their sons, and females, to their daughters.) Darwin did acknowledge that women have “greater tenderness and less selfishness” than men, and even greater “powers of intuition, and rapid perception.” But he dismissed these traits as “characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.” Even women’s positive traits were devalued as evidence of their inferiority. Darwin’s theory thus gave supposedly scientific authority to the idea that women are intellectually inferior to men — that women have no ideas or insights that warrant male respect. Women were pushed off their Victorian pedestal and relegated to a lower rung on the evolutionary ladder. In reality, of course, the survival of the human species depends just as much on characteristically female activities like giving birth and nurturing the young. Nevertheless, evolutionary thinkers preferred to exalt the more typically male activities like hunting and fighting as most important for the progress of the species. Beasts at Heart Other evolutionary thinkers likewise promoted theories of male supremacy. The most influential popularizer of Darwinism in America was the sociologist Herbert Spencer, who argued that survival of the fittest weeds out all but the most aggressive men: In the course of the struggles for existence among wild tribes, those tribes survived in which the men were not only powerful and courageous, but aggressive, unscrupulous, intensely egoistic. Necessarily, then, the men of the conquering races which gave origin to the civilized races were men in whom the brutal characteristics were dominant. How could women survive in relationships with such brutal men? Spencer’s answer was that women needed to develop the “ability to please.” It would help if they also acquired “the powers of disguising their feelings” in order to hide the sense of “antagonism produced in them by ill treatment.” The lesson of evolution, apparently, was that men are brutal beasts and that women must appease and placate them, while learning to hide their resentment of “ill treatment.” Many leading scientists of the day agreed with Darwin that women were less evolved than men. Anthropologist James McGrigor Allan held that “physically, mentally and morally, woman is a kind of adult child.” Thomas H. Huxley, whose fierce defense of Darwinism earned him the moniker Darwin’s Bulldog, said even education could not lift women to intellectual equality with men. Since women’s inferior abilities were a product of natural selection, he argued, they were not “likely to be removed by even the most skillfully conducted educational selection.” There was no hope, apparently, for women to escape their inferior position.>> evolutionnews.org |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<Do we have a three-part brain — reptilian, mammalian, and human? Curiously, psychology textbooks teach us that we do and neuroscience studies teach us that we don’t. Who to believe? And how did that happen anyway? In the 1960s, Yale University physiologist and psychiatrist Paul D. MacLean (1913–2007) offered the triune brain theory. On that view, the reptilian brain (brain stem) controls things like movement and breathing; the mammalian brain controls emotion (limbic system); and the human cerebral cortex controls language and reasoning (neocortex). That might have been just another theory except that it was widely promoted by celebrity astronomer Carl Sagan (1934–1996) in his book The Dragons of Eden (Random House, 1977). Praised in The Atlantic as “a rational, elegant, and witty book,” Dragons won a Pulitzer Prize in 1978, for “a distinguished book of non-fiction by an American author that is not eligible for consideration in any other category.” Chiming Beautifully The theory chimed beautifully with materialist thought of the day. The cool people already assumed a long slow process of evolution from mud to mind, with stops along the way for reptile, mammal, and ape. And, as we were constantly reminded, many of us may have got stuck along the way. But, as neuroscience advanced over the years, unwelcome facts began to surface. The human brain is just not organized as if the story happened in that way. As University of Oslo psychology professor Christian Krog Tamnes puts the matter in an interview at Science Norway, “Those of us who research brain development and brain evolution have known for quite some time that this isn’t true”: Instead, the cells that are similar to each other were found scattered throughout the brains of both species. Emotions, such as fear and sadness, are not made in one specific place in the brain. In fact, several parts of the brain are always involved. Which parts of the brain are active vary from time to time, and from person to person. ELDRID BORGAN, “NO, YOU DON’T HAVE A REPTILIAN BRAIN INSIDE YOUR BRAIN.” SCIENCE NORWAY, MAY 23, 2023. For example, Tamnes points to a paper on the topic last year: Despite 320 million years of separate evolution, lizards and mice share a core set of neuron types that are found all over the brain, “including in the cerebral cortex, challenging the notion that certain brain regions are more ancient than others.” Northeastern University neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett offers, “So if we absolutely need to have a metaphor, it’s much better to think of the brain as an orchestra. Even playing a simple song requires a lot of pieces to talk together effectively and in a coordinated way.” So we can still have lots of problems but our Inner Lizard is not one of them. What Psychology Students Are Learning Psychology lecture rooms and textbooks have been curiously slow to let go of the reptilian brain myth, however. Is that perhaps because it is socially reassuring to think that everyone who questions our sincerely held beliefs is, neurologically maybe, a rat or reptile throwback? In 2020, Joseph Cesario and colleagues reported on a study of what psychology students are told about such matters: This belief, although widely shared and stated as fact in psychology textbooks, lacks any foundation in evolutionary biology. “Our experience suggests that it may surprise many readers to learn that these ideas have long been discredited among people studying nervous-system evolution. Indeed, some variant of the above story is seen throughout introductory discussions of psychology and some subareas within the discipline… “To investigate the scope of the problem, we sampled 20 introductory psychology textbooks published between 2009 and 2017. Of the 14 that mention brain evolution, 86% contained at least one inaccuracy along the lines described above. Said differently, only 2 of the field’s current introductory textbooks describe brain evolution in a way that represents the consensus shared among comparative neurobiologists.” CESARIO, J., JOHNSON, D. J., & EISTHEN, H. L. (2020). YOUR BRAIN IS NOT AN ONION WITH A TINY REPTILE INSIDE. CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 29(3), 255–260. Puzzled by Sagan’s Role Science writer and editor Ross Pomeroy seems genuinely puzzled by the role Sagan played in helping to popularize triune brain theory: “Carl Sagan was, and to this day is, generally regarded as an honest and skeptical broker of scientific information. That he presented such a disputed theory essentially as fact to the lay public is a bit surprising. What’s more, Carl Sagan continued to push the theory three years later in his far more widely read book, Cosmos.” It’s not really so surprising if we look at the big picture. First, Sagan was a one-way skeptic. There were many things he was not skeptical about at all because they suited the popular worldview he shared and helped shape. For example, as Justin Gregg recounted in 2013, in 1961, he joined a semi-secret society called the Order of the Dolphin, which sought a way to communicate with intelligent extraterrestrials. He bought into the idea that dolphins had a sort of super-intelligence and a language like ours. The theory was that if we could decipher that language, we could decipher any extraterrestrial one. The Order was certainly dedicated. Gregg recounts, “As the Princeton historian D. Graham Burnett has noted, members wore insignia shaped like bottlenose dolphins and sent each other coded messages to hone their dolphinese and alien-language-decoding skills.” Were They Nuts? It might seem so at this distance. But club members back then included evolutionary biologist J. B. S. Haldane (1892–1964) and chemistry Nobelist Melvin Calvin — alongside SETI founder Frank Drake (1930–2022). The lesson here is that science functions better when we follow the evidence, as the neuroscientists are doing, than when we form fan clubs for cozy ideas championed by science celebs, as the psychologists appear to be doing — at least in this area.>> evolutionnews.org |
|||||||||||||||
|
The article gets a little technical so I’m just going to quote excerpts, with a link to the article at the bottom: <<In conjunction with the understanding that the formation of life from non-life constitutes a rise in specified complexity rather than increasing order, this generalized Second Law raised a theoretical barrier against any natural origin of life scenario.>> <<Noting that “The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adaptor function has appeared,” Yockey states, Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physico-chemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present.>> <<Their analysis of multiple proposals for natural mechanisms to overcome the thermodynamic barrier represented by the high degree of configurational entropy in living systems led them to conclude that all such mechanisms are “clearly inadequate to account for the configurational entropy work of coding.”>> <<In the documentary video “Unlocking the Mystery of Life,” the premise of intelligent design was cogently defended as an alternative to the shortcomings of naturalism to explain such biochemical enigmas as irreducible complexity and the specific sequences of amino acids comprising functional proteins. The latter example of nature’s inability to increase the information content of a closed system over time led biophysicist Dean Kenyon to disavow his own research, published earlier in his textbook, Biochemical Predestination.>> <<The author of the other text, Arthur Hobson, affirms that given an initial measurement of a system, predictions of the system at a later time “cannot contain more information (but may contain less information)” than the initial data describing the system. This limitation on natural processes, based upon the laws of quantum mechanics, prohibits a system (even the entire universe bounded by the cosmic horizon) from progressing from a state of lower information (pre-life) to a state of higher information (post-life) by any combination of natural forces.>> <<William Dembski affirms the proscriptions of the generalized Second Law by showing that chance and necessity are insufficient to ratchet up the complex specified information (CSI) content of a closed system over time: What natural causes cannot do, however, is originate CSI. This strong proscriptive claim, that natural causes can only transmit CSI but never originate it, I call the Law of Conservation of Information. It is this law that gives definite scientific content to the claim that CSI is intelligently caused.>> <<Meyer’s analysis and conclusions added to the scientific literature affirming the validity of the generalized Second Law as a fundamental boundary of nature that disallows an unguided origin of life.>> <<Have the last twenty years produced any experimental research demonstrating how unguided natural processes can successfully produce the complex, specified arrangements of components inherent in functional biomolecules? Any dearth of success in this field is not for lack of trying, nor is it surprising that scientists have not been able to coax even a single biochemically relevant protein into existence from a mix of ingredients likely to be available on the early Earth.>> <<A Rice University professor of chemistry, James Tour, who is renowned for his research in synthetic organic chemistry, draws this conclusion regarding any naturalistic origin-of-life scenario: …the requisite molecules (lipids, proteins, nucleic acids, and carbohydrates) are so unlikely to have occurred in the states and quantities needed, that we could never have gotten to the point of figuring out the genesis of the requisite code or information.>> <<Unguided natural processes, according to the generalized Second Law, cannot systematically increase the information content of a closed system over time. Since the origin of life, represented by the formation of a single-cell organism, constitutes just such an increase in information, natural processes are not expected to be the cause. Intelligence is the only recognized source of information, as inherent in living organisms. What we know of the laws of physics supports this conclusion.>> evolutionnews.org Because this post already is getting long, I’ll put my thoughts on this article in a following post. |
|||||||||||||||
|
But that would appear to disagree with the viewpoint of NASA: <<When studying Earth as a whole, our primary input is energy from the sun and from space. Earth outputs heat and light to space, maintaining an approximate overall steady-state with respect to energy. With respect to matter, other than some particles entering Earth’s Atmosphere (meteors) and a few atoms (mainly hydrogen) entering and leaving the top of the Atmosphere in relatively small amounts (with the exception of major impact events occurring every 100 million years or so), the Earth is mostly a closed system.>> mynasadata.larc.nasa.gov. Another source… <<Is Earth an open or closed system? Earth is commonly regarded as a closed system. The rocks on Earth are not leaving, and it is extremely rare for more to be added to the geosphere. The cryosphere may melt and refreeze, but no new water is added to it or the hydrosphere. As water evaporates, it goes into the air and later falls back to Earth as precipitation. Everything within those levels is a closed system. All matter on the planet stays within the Earth's atmosphere and rarely interacts with the universe as a whole. The atmosphere is the possible exception. Because the other systems are all contained within the atmosphere ring, some scientists think of it as being closed. For example, biologists and chemists can typically consider it closed for the vast majority of their work.>> study.com. One more source… <<The Earth is a closed system for matter The Earth is made up of chemical elements – think of the periodic table. That is a list of all basic elemental materials on our planet. Because of gravity, matter (comprising all solids, liquids and gases) does not leave the system. It is a closed box. And, the laws of thermodynamics, long agreed by scientists, tell us that it’s impossible to destroy matter. So the chemical matter we have on Earth will always be here. The important question is, how are those chemicals organised? The Earth is an open system for energy It is accepted science that the Earth is an open system for energy. Energy radiates into the Earth’s system, mainly from the sun. Energy is then radiated back into space from the Earth, with the flows being regulated by the Earth’s atmosphere and ozone layer. This delicate balanced transfer of energy maintains the surface temperature at a level that is suited to the forms of life that have evolved and currently exist.>> course.oeru.org |
|||||||||||||||
|
• If life could not have appeared naturally on earth (but required supernatural intervention,) we’re left with (imo) a highly implausible scenario of God creating single-celled organisms and then stopping before He created any other life. • I see no conflict between single-celled organisms being the first signs of life in the fossil record and the creation account in Genesis. The creation account says water and dry land appeared before the first visible life forms. Unicellular organisms obviously could have been present in the water and land. • Cells are so complex (and some scientists say irreducibly complex) it defies logic to think that complexity arose without intelligence behind it (regardless of whether one wants to call that intelligence “God.”) |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtu.be I plan to watch the rest of the video later. One incredibly interesting and tragic point in that discussion - what if (for example) dogs have thought processes not unlike humans but are simply incapable of vocalizing them? Heady stuff. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Just how much of a “head start” does the theory of evolution need? Difficult to quantify but the complexity of a cell (unknown in Darwin’s time) is so mind boggling, scientists today still haven’t fully figured it out. And evolutionists want the theory of evolution to start with a cell and all its complexity already in place. IMO, it’d be like saying, “We have a theory on how a bicycle formed by chance. But you have to give us the front and back tires, the frame and the handlebars as our starting point.” Video, which features Dr. James Tour, a world-renowned organic chemist, includes his challenge to origin-of-life researchers and how they respond to his points - mostly with silence but occasionally with insults. youtu.be Video is 55:45 Would love to have a scientist critique Tour’s points but I’m not aware of one on here who’s competent enough to do it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
But Tour says he never brings up God in his work or lectures as a scientist. Instead, it’s atheists who do that as a way to try to discredit him. I’ve heard it said on here (repeatedly) that one shouldn’t criticize a theory unless he can propose an alternative theory. But Tour says scientists don’t say that, and that’s not how science works. |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtu.be Video is 5:31 Plus… <<The Racism of Darwin and Darwinism Editor’s note: The following is excerpted from Chapter 1 of Richard Weikart’s new book, How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism. In 1881, toward the end of his life, Charles Darwin wrote to a colleague that the “more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” This was not just some offhand comment unrelated to Darwin’s science. It reflected important elements of his theory of human evolution. Indeed, he articulated this same principle in his scientific study of human evolution, The Descent of Man (1871), where he claimed, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” Not only racism, but racial extermination was an integral feature of Darwin’s theory from the start.>> More at: evolutionnews.org Plus… <<Charles Darwin's famous book The Descent of Man was 'warped' by his racist and sexist views, expert claims, 150 YEARS after its publication Charles Darwin's book 'The Descent of Man' was warped by his racist and sexist views, according to an expert reviewing the work 150 years after its publication. Published on February 24, 1871, The Descent of Man is one of the most influential works ever written on the theory of evolution and natural selection. 'Like so many of the scientific tomes of Darwin's day' the book 'offers a racist and sexist view of humanity,' says Princeton University anthropologist Agustín Fuentes. Writing in Science, Fuentes accuses the famed British naturalist of letting racism, sexism and misogyny 'warp' the scientific process and influence his findings. The article accuses Darwin of being 'dangerously wrong' on a number of assertions made in the 150-year-old book, including presenting his data through a cloud of racism and sexism that suggest women and non-white people are 'less than'. He said teachers should tell children about Darwin and his revolutionary theory, but also about the man and the 'sexism and racism' of the day that he seemed to share. 'Today, students are taught Darwin was the 'father of evolutionary theory', a genius scientist,' Fuentes wrote, but they 'should also be taught he was an English man with unfounded prejudices that warped his view of data and experience.>> www.dailymail.co.uk IMO, Darwin’s atheism (he abandoned belief in God long before he published his fantasy novel in 1859) also “warped his view of data and experience.” Evolutionists falsely claim Darwin was a believer when he published his fantasy novel, but I demonstrated in another thread that simply isn’t the case and may copy-and-paste that evidence into this thread when I have a chance. |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<Nine months after this writer's The Ascent of Racism appeared presenting strong evidence that Hitler was an evolutionist, Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould published an article which provides still more support for the thesis. There he introduces Benjamin Kidd, "an English commentator highly respected by both academic and lay circles." Kidd believed, according to Gould, that in Germany, "Darwin's doctrine became a justification of war" and is quoted by Gould as follows: Darwin's theories came to be openly set out in political and military text books as the full justification for war and highly organized schemes of national policy in which the doctrine of force became the doctrine of Right. In the light of this association of evolution with Nazism, we seek to see if Hitler's agenda met with Christian opposition. Evidence would suggest that the resistance was in fact substantial. EINSTEIN'S COMMENTARY: In The Church's Confession under Hitler, author Arthur Cochrane presents the not sufficiently well-known statement of exiled Albert Einstein, the great physicist, cited by Wilhelm Niemoller in Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche - Struggle and Testimony of the Confessing Church, p.526. Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.>> <<The world today, for the most part, despises Hitler-Stalin, also. Both rejected the ethics of loving neighbors as set forth in the Bible, and both slaughtered millions. Stalin self-consciously chose Darwin.13 Hitler tried to ram survival-of-the-fittest down the world's throat. Entomologist Vernon L. Kellogg, mentioned by Gould, summarized the position held, "That human group which is in the most advanced evolutionary state...should win in the struggle for existence..." By way of contrast, Jesus, a Jew, allowed his heart to be broken and His flesh to be torn for the benefit of His enemies. Is it any wonder that a sizable group of Christians, who worship Jesus as God, believe Him to be the Creator, and see each human being as one made in God's image, would find Hitler's philosophy utterly repugnant and seek to follow Jesus by opening their hearts of compassion to save suffering Jews?>> www.icr.org It really is sad that some people on here revere Darwin when he not only was wrong on the origin of species but had such a disastrous influence on later generations. Truly despicable. |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<By the time he was about to marry Emma Wedgwood at the beginning of 1839, he had to confess to her that, like his own father and her father, he was an unbeliever. His father Robert had warned him not to let the womenfolk know the extent of his own belief. Darwin was too honest for that. This nearly broke Emma’s heart. She wanted to be with him forever in heaven; he didn’t even believe in the existence of the soul. Darwin had already been working assiduously on his entirely materialistic account of evolution for about two years, methodically squeezing out every place where the divine might enter. That was the account he stuck to and refined all his life.>> www.discovery.org On atheism affecting Darwin’s rubbish theory and fake science… <<Darwin’s writings also demonstrate, however, that the facts played a very small part in the formulation of his theory. His early notebooks show that he entertained two other theories of evolution before finally arriving at his final theory. George Grinnell, in his study of Darwin’s first theory of evolution, asks this question: “Were these three theories complementary or were they mutually exclusive? If they were complementary, then the implication is clearly in favor of the importance of the empirical data in shaping Darwin’s thought, but if they were mutually exclusive, the implication is that Darwin approached the data with a prior world view which he attempted to superimpose on the data by means of various hypothetical models and mechanisms.” Grinnell has come to believe that Darwin’s three models were indeed mutually exclusive. Darwin rejected theory one (variation by isolation) because it contained too many anomalies. Darwin then turned his attention to theory two (variation by habit), but soon abandoned it for a third model (variation by domestic breeding), which turned out to be the most fruitful. “The extent to which he was willing to push one model,” argues Grinnell, “and after its collapse, to entertain new models suggests that he was philosophically inclined to transmutation theories for reasons that transcend the empirical data with which he originally worked.”>> <<That Darwin had a philosophical inclination toward evolutionary thinking is further supported by his response to evidence that contradicted his theory, including: (1) lack of transitional forms, (2) sudden appearance of Cambrian fossils, (3) the problem of coordinated development, (4) persistent types (i.e., species that do not change), and (5) the existence of nonadaptive structures. Rather than allowing contrary evidence to falsify the theory, as a good scientist would, Darwin offered a plethora of ad hoc hypotheses to save the theory from falsification. Later, he even embraced theories that he once ridiculed, such as Lamarckism (the theory that evolution occurs through the inheritance of traits acquired through the use or disuse of body parts) and group selectionism, to solve special problems that natural selection could not solve.>> <<Darwin claimed to have developed his theory of natural selection without any preconceived notions, but his writings indicate that his newfound materialistic faith was foundational in its development. On finding a theory that “worked,” or at least worked better than the other theories he entertained, he then searched for the facts that supported his theory, ignoring and explaining away all contrary evidence. Scholars such as George Grinnell, who have studied Darwin for years, are also coming to a similar conclusion: “I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin also did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather the facts to make it stick.”>> www.equip.org Excerpts taken from this thread (which I really oughta revive and expand.) m.gameknot.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
Darwin the Racist <<Although best known for On the Origin of Species, Darwin does not address human evolution and race until his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, in which Darwin applies his theories of natural selection to humans and introduces the idea of sexual selection. Here his white supremacism is revealed. Over the course of the book, Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as “savages:” It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage. The word savage is disdainful, and Darwin constantly elevates white Europeans above the savages. Darwin explains that the “highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect”. The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout. At one point, Darwin says that savages have “low morality,” “insufficient powers of reasoning,” and “weak power of self-command”. Darwin’s specific consideration of intellectual capacities is especially alarming. He begins with animals: “No one supposes that one of the lower animals reflects whence he comes or whither he goes,—what is death or what is life, and so forth”. His remarks soon expand to humans. “How little can the hard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses hardly any abstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence”. Darwin writes that Australians are incapable of complex thought, and insinuates that they are akin to lower animals: His perspective on non-European races is incredibly prejudiced and absurd. Modern evolutionary scholars and teachers tend to ignore or omit that component of Darwin’s theory, but it hasn’t gone completely unnoticed. For example, Rutledge Dennis examined Darwin’s role in scientific racism for The Journal of Negro Education and found that in Darwin’s world view, “talent and virtue were features to be identified solely with Europeans”. White supremacy is clearly embedded in The Descent of Man, regardless of Darwin’s brilliance or the accuracy of the rest of his theory. Darwin makes a disturbing link between his belief in white supremacy and his theory of natural selection. He justifies violent imperialism. “From the remotest times successful tribes have supplanted other tribes. … At the present day civilised nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations”. Darwin’s theory applies survival of the fittest to human races, suggesting that extermination of non-white races is a natural consequence of white Europeans being a superior and more successful race. Further, Darwin justifies violently overtaking other cultures because it has happened regularly throughout natural history. The arc of Darwin’s evolutionary universe evidently does not bend toward justice: He has no problem with continuing the vicious behavior of past generations. Claims such as those made evident in the title of a 2004 book, “From Darwin to Hitler,” may not be as alarmist as they seem. Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved. He writes that the “western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization”. Darwin imagines that Europeans are more advanced versions of the rest of the world. As previously mentioned, this purported superiority justified to Darwin the domination of inferior races by Europeans. As white Europeans “exterminate and replace” the world’s “savage races,” and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”. Read that last line again if you missed it: Darwin’s theory claims that Africans and Australians are more closely related to apes than Europeans are. The spectrum of organisms is a hierarchy here, with white Europeans at the top and apes at the bottom. In Darwin’s theory, colored people fall somewhere in between. Modern human is essentially restricted only to white Europeans, with all other races viewed as somehow sub-human.>> sites.williams.edu A crackpot racist and fraudulent scientist who inspired Hitler is a more accurate description of Charles Darwin than the superlatives offered by evolutionists on here. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I wasn’t aware of how racist Darwin was and how well documented his racism is. ICYMI… <<As white Europeans “exterminate and replace” the world’s “savage races,” and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”.>> Wow. Interestingly enough, Darwin confessed to having sex with a “full-blooded negro” man. amp.theguardian.com Perhaps that man justifiably dumped Darwin and that exacerbated Darwin’s racism. |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<While there are countless examples of overt racism in Finland, structural racism occurs with invisibility as it is embedded within the systems of society. Critical analysis shows that racialized minorities are subject to encountering this form of racism through varied practices. Racism is also “visible” merely by positioning whiteness as the norm and standard.>> <<Finland = One of the most racist countries in Europe Research makes it unmissable that Finnish society has an issue with structural racism. The Being Black in the EU report revealed that Finland is one of the most racist countries in Europe. The findings disclose that 63 % of Finnish respondents were subject to racist harassment and 14 % reported experiencing racist violence in 5 years before the survey. Similarly, the report confirms high occurrences of ethnic profiling and discrimination. According to the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), nearly 40 % of people with foreign background in Finland experienced discrimination within a year. Employment discrimination and exclusion influence the livelihoods of racialized minorities by perpetuating inequality. Research indicates an apparent bias in the hiring process, which aims to benefit candidates with Finnish appearing names while failing to seriously consider applicants who appear outside of Finnish identity. In addition, reports show that employer attitudes remain a significant barrier to employment of the Roma people. Racialized attitudes inform judgments concerning the types of careers a person is suitable to pursue. The role of migrants in the Finnish labor market is often portrayed narrowly as replenishing labor shortages in certain fields such as old-age care or cleaning services. Alternatively, employment policies actively aim to attract international “highly skilled” talent from abroad while ignoring the structural problems experienced by the highly educated migrants in the country. Additionally, structural racism is circulated within education. In schools, racism operates through the perpetuation of stereotypes, particularly through educators and guidance counselors who steer students into specific career and education paths based on racist assumptions. BIPOC and second-generation Finnish students are stigmatized as several students are mandated to enroll in Finnish as second language courses, despite their first language being Finnish or fluently articulating in Finnish. Consequently, employment and education inequality has a direct negative effect on the realization of other rights, opportunities, and economic status. This form of racially motivated othering not only sustains dominant ideas on Finnish identity being exclusive to whiteness but have adverse effects on student success, future, and relationship to Finnish society.>> www.amnesty.fi I realize it’s acceptable in the GK forums for leftists to dump all over the United States and half the country for being racist, but who knew little old Finland was so racist? |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 17-Oct-23, 19:59 |
That's because you ignored the response when the Tour interview was first posted |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 21-Oct-23, 23:51 |
How abiogenesis could have occurred www.youtube.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<How Charles Darwin Is Responsible for Multiple Genocides>> youtu.be Video is 12:14 |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-23, 21:48 |
I am afraid that statement ís itself nonsense, and nonsense in many different respects. Darwin had no 'molecules- to-man theory'. For those who won't understand that, Darwin did not start from molecules but from cells. The 'jump' from molecules (non-life) to cells (life) is almost certainly a much larger 'jump' than the one from single cells to dinosaurs, and is called abiogenesis. Darwin's theory might have contributed to devastating historical events, but so has many other scientific theories (e.g. nuclear physics). Finally, the theory that Darwin did propose is still the foundation of the latest and current theories of evolution. Of course, the latter are greatly amended and supplemented versions based on scientific observations since Darwin's time. To call 'Darwin's theory' nonsense is just as much nonsense as doing the same with Newton's mechanics theory. I won't go into analysing why you do this, but I think all reasonable people reading these exchanges will know why. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I’m well aware the LUCA is a single-celled organism (which is made up of molecules.) Saying molecules-to-man evolution is just an alliterative way of saying it. And it’s a fairly common way of referring to Darwin’s theory… www.google.com Single-celled organisms are incredibly complex but cannot be seen with the naked eye, and the idea that a human being is the end result of a blind-chance process that started with a single-celled organism is absolutely nonsense. And biologists with the Third Way of Evolution had this to say about Neo-Darwinism… <<Neo-Darwinism…is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.>> <<The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules.>> www.thethirdwayofevolution.com You can downplay the evil that resulted from Darwin’s false theory all you want, but the evidence of its effects on humanity are clear for everyone with an open and inquisitive mind to see. I think Darwin’s atheism and racism affected his science far more than you’re willing to see. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-23, 22:17 |
<I wonder who it is not interested in learning. Either 'my' videos are too long to be watched, or they don't happen to 'open'. And then, I am quoted saying/writing something I did not write! You accuse others of lying, but you indeed need a big mirror again! > More generally, there is no use for me to discuss this as you actively ignore what I reply. This is again clear from the above post. My comments on the role of the original Darwin theory are also downplayed and not taken seriously. And those aren't 'my' comments, but the view of the vast majority of scientific specialists in the field. <I think Darwin’s atheism and racism affected his science far more than you’re willing to see. > What do you know about what I am 'willing to see'? You are a typícal besserwisser, someone who always knows better. And it makes no difference who the opponent is, a Nobel Laureate or a stupid scientist from Finland |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
