Evolution: a red herring?

Science is a tool that is used to explain what we see around us. Darwin's motive was to explain what he saw in nature. Nothing more, nothing less. Science isn't about policy, it's about observation.Now, if some tyrant wishes to use the findings of science to justfiy his dogmatic ideology then that is the result of a human reaction to science, not the science itself.

But no-one can, in fact, derive any racist conclusions from the theory of evolution.One can, of course, conclude that eugenics is possible (though not desirable) from Darwin's theory, but one could come to that same conclusion by observing how we can improve our breeds of domestic animal. As in, for example, Plato's Republic:...And how can marriages be made most beneficial?--that is a question which I put to you, because I see in your house dogs for hunting, and of the nobler sort of birds not a few. Now, I beseech you, do tell me, have you ever attended to their pairing and breeding?In what particulars?Why, in the first place, although they are all of a good sort, are not some better than others?True.And do you breed from them all indifferently, or do you take care to breed from the best only?From the best.And do you take the oldest or the youngest, or only those of ripe age?I choose only those of ripe age.And if care was not taken in the breeding, your dogs and birds would greatly deteriorate?Certainly.And the same of horses and animals in general?Undoubtedly....And from this he concludes that the "Guardians" of his state should improve the condition of their human flock by selectively breeding them, like animals.People have always known that this is possible, knowing no more than Plato knew. Knowing the theory of evolution does not make eugenics seem any more possible, nor any more desirable.Do you believe that animal breeds can be improved by artificial selection? Then you, too, believe in all the scientific basis eugenics has.The objection to eugenics is that it's immoral, and the theory of evolution implies nothing to the contrary --- has, indeed, no moral implications.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

A good point, Dr A!

And Billy Carter the buffoon was Jimmy Carter's brother. And Whitey Bulger the criminal on the lam is the brother of Billy Bulger, former president of the Massachusetts State Senate and former president of the University of Massachusetts.You need to show how the ideas of evolution drew upon the ideas of Galton, and how they are racist in nature rather than an accurate theory of how the world really works. Since the data and ideas that led Darwin to formulate his theory were drawn from a round-the-world voyage of the HMS Beagle that ended in 1836 when Galton was just 14, the likelihood of a flow of ideas from Galton to Darwin seems slim to say the least.--Percy

unless I'm missing something, then I should be considered a Ph.D. just because my cousin, who's going to MIT for that, just about is?or that I too am as smart as her, because she's going to MIT for a doctorate in chemical engineering?Or wait, am I now a woman because she is?again, unless I'm missing something in this discussion, your argument here is quite ridiculous.(oh, and on a fictitious note--Dumbledore's cousin, maybe his brother, is quite the mentally challenged person. Unlike Dumbledore, one of the greatest wizards of his time)
(to parallel the Carter thing that Percy brought up)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

*ABE*Sorry totally got confused with a different discussion I was having.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Hello everybody. I just joined the forum today.Limbosis, you're lecturing us about what a theory is. What's your background in science, biology in particular? What are your qualifications to tell us that the ToE isn't true?Have you read Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle? If you have, you'll see that Darwin was considerably less racist than a lot of other people at the time, including Captain Fitzroy of the Beagle. He was very distressed by slavery, and joined abolitionist organizations.In fact, have you read anything about evolution other than creationist sources? Where did you get your evidence that the ToE was invented to justify racism?

Welcome to the fray, quester.Not sure you'll get an answer. You may get a reply, but an answer is a different matter.Enjoy.

---

ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:andClick on the red arrow reply button for general reply, the green arrow button for specific message reply (also sends email to poster). Check the PEEK button to see how coding was done (can also be done during reply using PEEK MODE at the top right of the "message you're replying to"thas the quick course.

Hi Quester,I just joined today as well. Without going into whether ToE is or isn't true I would just like to say that, for starters, Evolution (specifically macro-evolution and chemical evolution) is more of a religion than a scientific theory. Until we can get logical thinkers to put aside their personal agendas we will never make any true progress on this issue. I would love to see a scientific basis for the Evolution belief system but no one has yet to give me any hard science to support it. Science rarely, if ever proves anything in absolute terms. But science can concretely disprove theories or ideas and this is at the core of the scientific method. Scientists propose theories, then design experiments to eliminate (disprove) possiblities which leads to further refining of the theory. Over time, when enough experiments have been done, a theory can become a law (such as the thermodynamic laws, law of gravity, etc.) Any good scientists will tell you that a valid scientific theory must be set up in such a way that it can be DISPROVED. This is crucial to the scientific method. If you can't even imagine experiments that can disprove the theory then the theory is pretty much useless and not considered valid (at least not in true science). This is why religion is not science. We cannot design experiments disprove the existence of a creator. By the same token we cannot design experiments to disprove evolution. We cannot even imagine a finding in nature that would disprove evolution. Which is why evolution is just another religion in the end (no offense intended to you religion haters out there) and if you are intellectually honest you can admit that its a belief system that is outside of science and stop pretending that it is scientific. The evolution faith movement is driven by the goal of finding what they already know in their hearts to be true and when any real scientific evidence crops up over time that contridict the belief system they simply modify the belief system. This is not science. I have met only a handful of evolutionist who are willing to admit this and for these I have respect.

hello, welcome to evc. this is a classic creationist canard, and simple misdirection. "chemical evolution" is not a biological principle, is it? and "macro-evolution" is not a distinction that science makes. speciation, as you should be able to imagine, happens at the species level. and this is not a mechanism that many creationists choose to debate lately -- as it's easily demonstrated in recorded human history and in the lab.the problem creationists run into is in asserting that there is some other mechanism that prevents change from compiling (ie: everything stays in a "kind"). it's a bit like saying "the highest number is 4." 1+1=2, 1+1+1=3, 1+1+1+1=4, but 2+3=4. it doesn't work. and no creationists has every proposed a good mechanism that prevents change from compiling -- just more false statements at the species level, with such classic pratt's as "no new information." which clearly misrepresents how mutation and speciation works. if that statement were true, every species would become extinct within a few generations. there's lots of very hard evidence, in the form of mineral deposits -- fossils. the word you're thinking of is "hypothesis." "theory" can either refer to a working model, or a genre of research. theories can indeed be overturned, but they do not become laws.for instance, the theory of evolution is composed (primarily) of two laws: the law of speciation, and the law of natural selection. these are things that have so much evidence to back them up that nobody, not even your average creationist, questions them. there are a good deal other lesser known laws involved, but the theory is about how these two laws interact -- in and of itself, it's actually rather obvious. why creationists assert that they have no effect on each other, i don't know. precisely. we cannot consider any hypothesis involving god, because god cannot be effectively disproved. sure we can. creationists propose them all the time, just without knowing they are doing so. pretty much every misrepresentation of evolution committed by a creation can be turned into a valid experiment. for instance, if a dog gave birth to a cat, that would effectively disprove the law heritability, meaning that any system describing reproduction through heritable features, such as evolution, would also be overturned. actually, yes, it is. if you have a working theory, and new information presents itself that contradicts that theory -- you have modify or discard that theory, don't you? that's more or less the opposite of what creationists do: ignore the vast majority of evidence against their position.

---

Had to delurkify myself for this.

quote:

---

Evolution (specifically macro-evolution and chemical evolution) is more of a religion than a scientific theory.

---

This probably isn't the correct thread to debate this is, and there are several others in which this claim has already been discussed. (Hint: You should probably include your definition of religion. It makes it a lot easier to explain why it isn't one.)

quote:

---

Science rarely, if ever proves anything in absolute terms.

---

Uh yeah, obviously, since we can never know whether or not we have all the facts we can't say whether or not any theory is absolutely true.

quote:

---

We cannot design experiments disprove the existence of a creator. By the same token we cannot design experiments to disprove evolution.We cannot even imagine a finding in nature that would disprove evolution.

---

Is that a fact? Let's see, if a mechanism was found that prevented minor genetic changes from accumulating and leading to macro-evolutionary changes then the ToE would be falsified. Seemed pretty easy to conceive of a possible falsification of the theory to me. Took me all of about 15 seconds, what's your excuse?

quote:

---

when any real scientific evidence crops up over time that contr[a]dict the belief system they simply modify the belief system. This is not science.

---

Wow, just wow. Could you be more wrong? Seriously, I am completely serious. Is there any way on Earth that statement could be more wrong? Introduction to the Scientific MethodFrom the link..."If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified."That is exactly what you are supposed to do. If it didn't then it *would* be a religion.

I'm glad you delurked Iname. Keep this up will you please.

this is a classic creationist canard, and simple misdirection. "chemical evolution" is not a biological principle, is it?Why is chemical evolution misdirection? Is it misdirection because you simply don't won't to deal with this tiny problem that makes your religion fall apart? Chemical evolution is a natural consequence of the logic of macro-evolution. Macro-evolution may not be the current term that you fancy but you obviously know what it means. I am not the first person to use this term and have seen evolutionists use it so I am not sure why it offends you. I don't want to be offensive so I will just say evolution from now on so we can stay focused. At any rate, one cannot avoid the final consequence of believing in evolution which is that life had to evolve from non-living material. For this to occur we would have to violate a very important law in biology called the Law of Biogenesis - life only comes from life. There is never been an experiment done in which non-living material has evolved into living. That's why its a law. Most all biologists are evolutionists but I still cannot understand how it is scientific to create a "theory" which violates the most fundamental law of their own discipline. It would be like a chemist stating a new chemical theory that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, but in the discipline of chemistry such a person would be laughed at. I wish someone could give me an explanation for why biologists blindly accept a theory that violates their own fundamental law. Even if we forsake that law and assume this first organism that came from the primordial soup, this first organism would obviously have to reproduce asexually. Can you propose a logical mechanism for the evolution of sexual reproduction?

Actually, I don't. Yeah, never heard it before.Can you explain to me exactly what phenomenon you purport to describe with the term "macroevolution"?

"there's lots of very hard evidence, in the form of mineral deposits -- fossils."Can you please give me more details on how you believe that mineral deposits and fossils are hard evidence that supports the evolutionary mechanism? Specifically, can you give me an example of a transitional species that links one genus to another? Since this process would have happened over millions of years one would think that these transitional forms would abound.Off topic: Would you mind telling me how you got my text in the indented box format?