The Scientific Method Applied To Evolution...

[luke1733]

Darwin wasn't racist, but his cousin sure as hell was and he didn't even know his theory was being used in such a way.
http://commondescent.net/articles/darwin_on_race.htm

Whoa, I"m a just leave it up to you to do the research on Darwin not being racist. There's a ton of people out there trying to discredit it, but now a days it's popular to wonder. Who is racist??? That's pretty easy to see his direct quotes on how he viewed Africans and negroes. He made that clear. Then I'll ask what your definition of racist is--because you might need to rethink it? Not being as racist as another is a different conversation, but the boy was straight up racist. Scientists try to present him as not being racist, but his books and quotes can't be erased. He spoke on it.

 

[luke1733]

I am aware of non-racist views Darwin had and spoke on (I know of his intimacy with a black woman), but this does not eliminate the racist views he also had. Simply put, if a man rapes one woman but doesn’t another and expresses true love to another, is he not still a rapist?

Quotes from Descent of Man:

"It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place."

I put the above passage to let you know, I am aware of Darwin's views that are not racist AS well as his racist views. Just because you have some or even majority non-racist views doesn't mean you also don't have some racist views.

Not only is the below not true of Africans, it was known by Darwin not to be true but he said it anyway:

"Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.

His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.

A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.

In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.

With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.”

 

[luke1733]

Here's the RACIST parts:

1st off, this Post (is taking away from alissowack's main point but for Oya here we go) shouldn’t be about Darwin but since this will be the last time I dispute Oya on this; (this is the 2nd time I’ve had to do it, even though this time is a different topic) here we go:

RACIST quotes from Darwin’s Descent of Man:

Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:

1.

“It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.

“The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals–to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races.”

Charles Darwin was himself a racist, referring to native Africans and Australians, for example, as savages. This shows that evolution is inherently racist. Also his constant comparisons of only negroes to apes is racist when he does not compare whites to apes. Also his constant distinction between civilized versus savage only being white. How much does it take for you to see racism??? Just cause racism was normal and okay’d in that day doesn’t mean he wasn’t.

Since you obviously want or need to see him talk about killing blacks in order for him to be racist…..Well, here you go: (we know who according to him the savages are NOW versus the civilized)

2.

This next quote is the exact reasoning/right Hitler and Stalin felt they had on practicing genocide.

They were doing their duty to evolution

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla" (1874, p. 178). –The Descent of Man

He didn’t believe in slavery (in fact wanted to abolish it) and he was one of the first to say blacks came before whites and whites are ancestors of blacks; which in that day wasn’t popular among racists at all to say.

Whitewashing of Darwin’s Racism: Understand the time. It was complicated. He was a perplex person to view him one way isn’t fair. He is being misportrayed as a racist.

Maybe if you’re (don’t know if you are or aren’t; not trying to insult ya of ur a man) a woman this will appeal to you more of what he thought toward you:

women some of whose "powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation."

 

[luke1733]

Note also: I believe that-just because you are racist doesn’t mean some of your theories aren’t true. You can be a brilliant racist with correct theories but still a racist. My point is you said he wasn’t racist and he was. Here’s my view on Darwin: Was he a racist who saw himself as a racist and spoke vehemently to promote racism directly with popular language of condescending remarks? Probably not but he kept alot of racist company (as you already noted)--but you can't control who you are around--or can you??

He also was very well aware of the implications of his words and was careful of what he wrote and said. Basically I can say the fact to me is he looks to be a racist who simply believed whites were superior to blacks and other colored races,but-but also that blacks had intelligence and were worth existing and being loved and not enslaved. Due to the former "but", that logic is enough for some blacks and whites and people of other races to say then that he wasn't racist. That's where I do not agree with him not being a racist, but state correctly that he was a racist who had the consciousness to know that he loved humankind but believed Whites superior to all.

 

[alissowack]

Only posting the video again because the account I used deleted it.

 

[And_So_It_Burns]

I know it, studied it and took classes and passed the tests.

This is very difficult for me to believe. It is almost impossible for me to believe someone could receive passing grades in any science class, much less biology and be so scientifically illiterate

Reading all that I wrote above is proof,

Proof that you have an under developed understanding of the natural world

I can be honest enough to say I don't know what happened to create life.

Evolution doesn't explain how life started, you're confusing this with abiogenesis. Evolution explains how life diversified overtime.

so you get a chance to bring ur proof and have last word. Just don't trust in some scientists just because they showed somebody something and it sounds good tho.

Ok, I'm starting to doubt you ever took a science class. Do you understand the process of how a theory is formed? It's not random conjecture. All positive claims must be based on testable, objective and falsifiable evidence. We understand more about evolution than we do gravity and atoms. Ok here's a list of transitional fossil found overtime. A transitional fossil is a fossil that is in the intermediate stage between two ancestral groups and exhibits traits of both i.e a reptile- mammal, or reptile-bird, below are just SOME of the transitional fossils from reptiles to mammals. Darwin said if evolution is true, we should see things like this. You can go to a museum and see any of these on display.

Genus:

Archaeothyris

Haptodus

Dimetrodon

Biarmosuchus

Cynognathus

Thrinaxodon

Morganucodon

Yanoconodon

 

[And_So_It_Burns]

28 problems that aren't my ideas, the 29th is, but point that I agree with are problems with your proof of the THEORY,THEORY of evolution

Gravity is a theory too, so is The theory of atoms or Atomic theory...

Please read a science book. A scientific theory has a totally different meaning than the colloquial usage employed by the average person. A theory must make accurate predictions and is used to describe a wide array of observable natural phenomenon. All theories are comprised of FACTS and have been through the harsh criticism of peer before even being considered a feasible hypothesis. Evolution has stood the harshes tests by the smartest people to ever live for over 100 years and is still the only theory of biodiversity on earth.

(as it pertains to speciation/ meaning A man comes from a fish, or a chimpanzee, or the Big Bang Theory.)

When has any scientists said man came from a fish. This would actually disprove evolution. No scientists has ever said man came from chimps either. This is a common misconception. This lack of basic understanding makes me doubt you ever taken a course in evolution like you've claimed.

22. The universe was created by a collapsing star and rotates. And like super-cooled liquids, the rotation causes random swirls which are our galaxies. This falsehood and apparent chaos explains the harmony and order in everything that we behold.

23. The speed of light

24. Black holes

25. Antimatter

What does any of this have to do with evolution?

doesn't matter that it happened a billion years ago. We should see it happening by now.

We do. There's peer reviewed articles on this. The reason none of this satisfies is because you have a flawed basic understand of evolution. We would never see a snake give birth to a bear. Again this would disprove evolution.

@luke1733

 

[luke1733]

Yo, I'm tired of writing so much stuff on here. Believe what you choose. At the least, you can at least see why some scientists do not sign onto to the theory of speciation. It is not accepted by the entire community. As to me taking biology and going back and forth with attending the University of Iowa and graduating in under 4 years that's whatever. My responses need to be shorter so, I made my points previously and there's plenty more from more reputable sources with higher degrees in the field that you can read on. Even if you don't believe the opposition at least you'll see what's been said by people who also aren't believing in creationist theory but just say speciation isn't correct either. Hell, at least watch the video alisowack put up for this thread. Oh, and if it makes u feel any better I read what all you wrote. I figured I owed it since I write a lot too. One last thing "and so it burns," they have a gel for that you might wanna get it taken care of now.

 

[zombie]

If you think evolution is bullshit wait till you read about what happened before it.

 

[whoseworldisthis]

wow... that interviewer in the video you posted is retarded and obviously doesn't understand evolution

edit: The poster deleted the video I was commenting on.

 

[And_So_It_Burns]

Yo, I'm tired of writing so much stuff on here. Believe what you choose. At the least, you can at least see why some scientists do not sign onto to the theory of speciation. It is not accepted by the entire community. As to me taking biology and going back and forth with attending the University of Iowa and graduating in under 4 years that's whatever. My responses need to be shorter so, I made my points previously and there's plenty more from more reputable sources with higher degrees in the field that you can read on. Even if you don't believe the opposition at least you'll see what's been said by people who also aren't believing in creationist theory but just say speciation isn't correct either. Hell, at least watch the video alisowack put up for this thread. Oh, and if it makes u feel any better I read what all you wrote. I figured I owed it since I write a lot too. One last thing "and so it burns," they have a gel for that you might wanna get it taken care of now.

By "some scientists" you failed to mention that over 90% of scientists accept the theory that's higher than the theory of relativity. There's a good reason why There's no competing theory to evolutionary biology just like there's no competing theory to Einstein's theory of relativity or Newtonian mechanics. These theories aren't perfect no realm of human knowledge is infallible but these theories are demonstrably true.

Oh it's And so it burns is a Jedi mind tricks song lol

 

[And_So_It_Burns]

If you think evolution is bullshit wait till you read about what happened before it.

Do you believe evolution is "bullshit"

 

[zombie]

If you think evolution is bullshit wait till you read about what happened before it.

Do you believe evolution is "bullshit"

No I think it's a plausible credible and logical explanation. Not that it's the absolute full truth.

 

[And_So_It_Burns]

If you think evolution is bullshit wait till you read about what happened before it.

Do you believe evolution is "bullshit"

No I think it's a plausible credible and logical explanation. Not that it's the absolute full truth.

I agree nothing man knows should be considered "the absolute full truth" we don't know everything about anything. But we definitely can show what's factual and make accurate predictions. I don't think any aspect of human knowledge will ever be complete.

 

[bambu]

Good thread......

Typical modus operandi by anti-creationists......

Whenever anyone provides evidence against the theory of evolution, their intelligence is immediately called into question.......

@luke1733 you provided excellent evidence that went ignored behind infantile questions of your intelligence....

I believe that you did attend university and you are courageous for attempting to enlighten the dumb fucks in this forum......

@alissowack.....

Good drop....

The video illustrates the dangers of blind faith and shows that even "trained" scientists can have no idea about their discipline.......

Still waiting on someone to provide some type of evidence that establishes that "these theories are demonstrably true"....

For glory's sake, WAR!!!!

 

[And_So_It_Burns]

Ok I'll bite. Really sad people are defending pseudoscience and creationism myths in 2015. We have a better understanding of evolution than we do quantum mechanic theory, gravitational theory and even atomic theory. It's obvious creationists only have a problem with science when it conflicts with their 2000 plus year old desert books.

Good thread......

Typical modus operandi by anti-creationists......

Whenever anyone provides evidence against the theory of evolution, their intelligence is immediately called into question.......

@luke1733 you provided excellent evidence that went ignored behind infantile questions of your intelligence....

I replied to the small portion of his post that could be considered a some what coherent argument against evolution. A good portion of his argument attempted to disprove abiogenesis and the big bang which are completely separate from evolution. I listed transitional fossils, reptiles transitioning into mammals, reptiles into birds ect.

I believe that you did attend university and you are courageous for attempting to enlighten the dumb fucks in this forum......

Yes, believing in a well established branch of biology makes one a "dumb fuck" Evolutionary biology is a well understood natural phenomenon. In fact, biology only makes sense in light of evolution. We base our vaccines and anti-biotics off it. It's been countlessly proven over the last 150 years through, the fossil record, DNA, morphology, taxonomy and the biological distribution of animals.

Good drop....

The video illustrates the dangers of blind faith and shows that even "trained" scientists can have no idea about their discipline.......

Science doesn't require faith because it's demonstrably true. Or else it wouldn't be science. Religious myths on the other hand like, Noah's ark and creationism have to be believed based on faith alone because all physical evidence contradicts it.

Still waiting on someone to provide some type of evidence that establishes that "these theories are demonstrably true"....

Hmmm well we have observed evolution in labs and have peer reviewed papers on this observation. Not to mention the mapping of the human genome undoubtedly shows we evolved. We have transitional fossils as well which shows the intermediate stages between to species and some case classes. There's also vestigial organs which are only explainable through evolution. Then there's the geological evidence.
http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/speciation-observed-again
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

 

[bambu]

Ok I'll bite. Really sad people are defending pseudoscience in 2015.

Indeed….

I replied to the small portion of his post that could be considered a some what coherent argument against evolution. A good portion of his argument attempted to disprove abiogenesis and the big bang which are completely separate from evolution. I listed transitional fossils, reptiles transitioning into mammals, reptiles into birds ect.

You posted a list of “transitional fossils” that redirects to Wikipedia, which is not a problem(I appreciate the free encyclopedia). Its just that you left out the most important part…..

“As noted already by Darwin, the fossil record is incomplete.[1] Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.[2]

In fact, biology only makes sense in light of evolution. We base our vaccines and anti-biotics off it. It's been countlessly proven over the last 150 years through, the fossil record, DNA, morphology, taxonomy and the biological distribution of animals.

Fossil record = incomplete

DNA = evidence for intelligent design


**Morphology = change over time

*Taxonomy = is the science of defining groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups.

* Species distribution or the biological distribution of animals.

*does not need evolution to be considered a discipline*

** A further problem with relying on morphological data is that what may appear, morphologically speaking, to be two distinct species, may in fact be shown by DNA analysis to be a single species. The significance of these differences can be examined through the use of allometric engineering in which one or both species are manipulated to phenocopy the other species.**

(need to clarify that when I use the term evolution, I am referring specifically to speciation, or the idea of a common ancestor, the Darwinist theory that one specie(kind, organism) can change into another. Not the definition of evolution as the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. i.e. "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"

Synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding)

Science doesn't require faith because it's demonstrably true. Or else it wouldn't be science.

Exactly…..

We call spinning invalid evidence to fit scientific theories pseudoscience…..

Hmmm well we have observed evolution in labs and have peer reviewed papers on this observation. Not to mention the mapping of the human genome undoubtedly shows we evolved. We have transitional fossils as well which shows the intermediate stages between to species and some case classes.

We have already deconstructed the fossil record….

There's also vestigial organs which are only explainable through evolution.

As far as human vestigiality goes....

The pineal gland was originally believed to be a "vestigial remnant" of a larger organ. In 1917 it was known that extract of cow pineals lightened frog skin. Dermatology professor Aaron B. Lerner and colleagues at Yale University, hoping that a substance from the pineal might be useful in treating skin diseases, isolated and named the hormone melatonin in 1958.....

The human appendix = Debunked

In The Descent of Man, Darwin cited the human appendix as an example of a vestigial organ. But Darwin was mistaken: The appendix is now known to be an important source of antibody-producing blood cells and thus an integral part of the human immune system. It may also serve as a compartment for beneficial bacteria that are needed for normal digestion. So the appendix is not useless at all.

Junk DNA = Debunked

“This concept of ‘junk DNA’ is really not accurate. It is an outdated metaphor,” said Richard Myers of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology in Alabama.



‘Junk DNA’ concept debunked by new analysis of human genome.

Wisdom teeth & human tailbones = Debunked....

Teeth???

It is stated that at one time in our alleged evolution we had more room in our mouths. It also has been suggested that we had to chew more than we do today. Both of these statements may be plausible, however they do not prove or even suggest that we are evolving. These teeth still function for chewing and are by no means useless or vestigial. The lack of space in the mouths of certain people – and by no means all people – is a consequence of the degeneration of the human race in regard to both genetics and lifestyles. This is quite contrary to the concept of evolution, which implies that we are improving and adding features.

Tailbones???

Note that even if there occurs or has occurred a case of a person having a movable tail-like caudal appendage containing bone, that does not mean the appendage is vestigial. And even if human caudal appendages were vestigial (which they are not) this would constitute degenerative change (loss of an organ) whereas evolution requires generative change, producing new types of organs that did not exist before.

Furthermore, If humans "evolved" from apes (which have no tail)......

Where does the functioning tail come in, that would result in its vestigiality in humans???????

*No apes have tails......Only monkeys*

This is not enough evidence to claim that the human coccyx is vestigial............

ves•tige /ˈvestij/ Biology ~ a part or organ of an organism that has become reduced or functionless in the course of evolution.

The human coccyx was created to anchor the pelvic floor and serves that specific function……

Then there's the geological evidence.

Be specific….

That video you posted is talking about adaptation or change over time……

Again….

I am referring specifically to speciation, or the idea of a common ancestor, the Darwinist theory that one specie(kind, organism) can change into another. Not the definition of evolution as the gradual development of something

 

[luke1733]

Be specific….

That video you posted is talking about adaptation or change over time……

Again….

I am referring specifically to speciation, or the idea of a common ancestor, the Darwinist theory that one specie(kind, organism) can change into another. Not the definition of evolution as the gradual development of something

[/quote]

He won't get it.

Al Pacino "Devil's ADVOCATE" -Consider the source of your information

AND SO IT BURNS doesn't understand.......... a lot. By a lot, I mean the reason and the push for speciation. Basically the majority of US doctors that are very religious go into medicine/surgical fields. The scientists who go into fossil records are majority-by-far atheists who ENTERED that field-- inspired largely for the purpose of trying to find(and when it couldn't be found--FALSIFY) fossil records to validate their beliefs, publish them,receive grants and make them satisfied. Since all the other scientists in that community are of the same mind, they all accept it, even though every 5 years when points on their evidence are proven to not be accurate and trustworthy they accept it anyway and figure if they fill up the stat sheets/finding then people like AND SO IT BURNS will buy it because he doesn't want to challenge it.

REpeat myself:

CHRISTIAN or other religious scientists simply don't WASTE time trying to dig in dirt for old bones when they can be saving lives and souls. ATHEIST scientists want to validate their faith and get paid for it and be recognized/honored so they flock to the field and practically own it. Thus everything is generally accepted until a religious scientist has to remove themselves from heart surgery to attend a forum 99% conducted and funded by atheists to come and challenge a dumb point unproven as speciation.

I'm surprised AND SO IT still willing to keep trying to argue. He can't see outside the box. I guess we'll let him believe from one cell all life miraculously by accident formed. With all the good points you made, he'll state scientists believe in evolution, which you and I and other religious scientists (who before atheism rose were the scientists in European and Eastern Africa) don't really waste time arguing because we believe in parts of evolution/mutations, but specifically on the point and theory of speciation being true it is not and the scientists are divided on this point themselves. AND SO IT BURNS confuses when scientists post 90% of scientists believe in Evolution that the 90% also believe everything people include in to be a part of evolution, such as speciation.

AND SO IT BURNS has a lot of faith in what he states constantly "WE" (we have observed evolution in labs and have peer reviewed papers on this observation. Not to mention the mapping of the human genome undoubtedly shows we evolved. We have transitional fossils ) have observed.

NO matter how many times it is explained to him that humans have the ability to mutate or inactive cells have the ability to become active or take in diseases,cancers, foreign agents introduced into our bodies THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT we are still HUMAN!!!

Everything below is not my words but a study by Ecklund and Scheitle

Disbelief in God by Academics4

Discipline %

Physics 40.8

Chemistry 26.6

Biology 41.0

Overall 37.6

Sociology 34.0

Economics 31.7

Political Science 27.0

Psychology 33.0

Overall 31.2

It is true that scientists believe less in the existence of God than the general population of the United States. However, the recent study by Ecklund, and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and not area of expertise.

Not a quote from Ecklund

90 percent of medical doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults... [in the general US population]"http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml

That's my response to YOUR quote:[[[[By "some scientists" you failed to mention that over 90% of scientists accept the theory that's higher than the theory of relativity. There's a good reason why There's no competing theory to evolutionary biology just like there's no competing theory to Einstein's theory of relativity or Newtonian mechanics {LET ME ADD what you didn't. They both believed in GOD}. These theories aren't perfect no realm of human knowledge is infallible but these theories are demonstrably true.]]]]

So, your logic is....due to the fact that there isn't a competing theory then this theory must be true???

Hmmm, isn't that what Creationists thought before challenged??? Isn't that what people who thought the Earth was flat thought? Isn't that what every know-it-all think before proven wrong or challenged to the degree of admitting they lack proof/evidence?

Now HERE is DISPROVing AND SO IT BURns again:

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

51% of scientists according to the pewforum believe in GOD.

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

I dont want you confusing me saying "more scientists are atheist than the general US population" with saying most scientists are atheist. THEY ARE NOT, according to the pewforum.

I could go into why CHEMISTS are majority CHRISTIAN, and mention how the formula and DNA (as AND SO IT know so well) influences their beliefs to INTELLIGENT DESIGN, but it's futile.

Overstand/understand. I gotta go to work

 

[luke1733]

Glad Bambu had energy to put up on this.

AND SO IT BURNS at least is reading and thinking. He knows I've explained the inception point of where racist Darwin received his ideas from (his brotherhood and his family). He knows the motivation Darwin and other scientists had in instituting this theory. He knows why it was carried on by Stalin/Hitler/America. He knows why we say speciation does not exist and cannot be proven (but he states it happens slowly for a piece of grass to morph into a komodo dragon). He knows why scientists who believe in God largely do not pursue careers in the field of fossil records. He knows a finch having a different sized beak is still a finch. He just won't accept it.

AND SO IT BURNS is about as useful as a wet match in a cave.

 

[zombie]

THE EITHER IN THIS THREAD is heavy as fuck