Do Bad Mutations Kill People?

[ChristineM]

C'mon, don't play coy.

First, I asked you to produce a bipedal ape. No, not one that is already a human. That would be cheating and circular reasoning. The request should not be too hard for an evolutionist since apes are our common ancestor.

We have apes all over the world. Find one that is strictly bipedal.

Or you can hybridize them with a human. This may not work so well and produce the mutated "walking" apes.

Either way, you'll have demonstrated macroevolution and be world famous. And get poster cred on RF.

Or you can hybridize two non-flowering plants and produce one that is a flowering plant. That would get you poster cred, too.

You did not ask ask me to produce a bipedal ape and your deliberate ignorance of evolution is not in question.
Fyi several apes can walk bipedally but none are fully bipedal, evolution may cause that to change. For sure, extinct apes that were fundamentally bipedal have existed, Gracile australopiths. Ahh right, Lucy, you do deny relevance because she pops your bubble

And you still refuse to answerer the question. Why are you so scared of answering "What gives you the impression that evidence and fact are "BIASED"?"

 

[Audie]

It appears that claiming "bias" is a near- universal
response from creationists who, unable to counter
with anything else, use it as a kind of magical
"get out of anything" card.

 

[james bond]

You did not ask ask me to produce a bipedal ape and your deliberate ignorance of evolution is not in question.
Fyi several apes can walk bipedally but none are fully bipedal, evolution may cause that to change. For sure, extinct apes that were fundamentally bipedal have existed, Gracile australopiths. Ahh right, Lucy, you do deny relevance because she pops your bubble

And you still refuse to answerer the question. Why are you so scared of answering "What gives you the impression that evidence and fact are "BIASED"?"

Pops my bubble? From the reaction I am getting it's like I destroyed evolution. Evolution will still live. You just have to change your worldview and that you were "made a monkey of.".

No ape is fully bipedal or a hybrid can be created that lives. It demonstrates that we did not come from a common ancestor ape. The ape-man is an urban legend made up by atheist scientist Donald Johanson on LSD. He took multiple fossils and made it up. "Lucy" doesn't even have feet or legs. It's only 40% complete. Lucy was 3'6" and weighed 50 lbs. It probably was a chimpanzee. Richard Leakey thinks it's multiple SPECIES. Even Professor Evan Lovejoy, who reconstructed Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans. Now, some of you are telling yourselves that we're apes because of some superfamily tree. It's really hilarious, but it's atheist science that is taught in schools so we have to present the other side and that of creation science. One paleontologist said that paleontology is more about how we view ourselves which some of you MUST view as a chimpanzee-like ape. Woo, woo, woo.

You are biased because you can't admit the truth and that you were wrong.

 

[ChristineM]

Pops my bubble? From the reaction I am getting it's like I destroyed evolution. Evolution will still live. You just have to change your worldview and that you were "made a monkey of.".

No ape is fully bipedal or a hybrid can be created that lives. It demonstrates that we did not come from a common ancestor ape. The ape-man is an urban legend made up by atheist scientist Donald Johanson on LSD. He took multiple fossils and made it up. "Lucy" doesn't even have feet or legs. It's only 40% complete. Lucy was 3'6" and weighed 50 lbs. It probably was a chimpanzee. Richard Leakey thinks it's multiple SPECIES. Even Professor Evan Lovejoy, who reconstructed Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans. Now, some of you are telling yourselves that we're apes because of some superfamily tree. It's really hilarious, but it's atheist science that is taught in schools so we have to present the other side and that of creation science. One paleontologist said that paleontology is more about how we view ourselves which some of you MUST view as a chimpanzee-like ape. Woo, woo, woo.

You are biased because you can't admit the truth and that you were wrong.

The delusion is strong in you my young padawan

Except the human ape

Probably??? You base your bull on probably??? Wow that explains all. I dont give a monkeys uncle what you and a couple of dozen ignorant creation (oxymoron) scientists say to hid behind their shrinking bubble. Chimps had not evolved when Lucy lived.

There is a very good reason that creation (oxymoron) science is not taught as science, think about it for a moment...

Facts are not wrong, therefore i am not wrong, delusions are wrong, therefore you are wrong

And you are still scared of answering the question

"What gives you the impression that evidence and fact are "BIASED"?"

 

[viole]

I was wondering what evolutionary science has to say about the horrendous shooting at Parkland High School in Florida? If we evolved from apes, then is the gunman more an animal than a human being? If he's found guilty, then is it okay based on evolution that he be terminated by lethal injection? If an ape killed humans, even if for food, then it would be shot or euthanized. If Nikolas Cruz is a human being, then what does it say about evolution? For what reason does a mentally disabled man become a crazed killer showing no mercy and killing students at random? This man or animal fooled those closest to him enough for them to think he didn't have guns, but he did. He had numerous run ins with the law. Even if he was mentally ill, shouldn't we think that he was a bad mutation, i.e. more ape than human, and be put in jail like a killer animal to be euthanized if found guilty?

Some may say evolution has nothing to do with this. If evolution has nothing to do with this, then what purpose does it serve if we cannot apply it to today's society? We still have apes. We have humans. Thus, can we have bad mutations?

Evolution has so much morality as a photon. And it does not need to serve a purpose. Purposes are for the teleological inclined, not for unguided natural mechanisms.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Mock Turtle]

I was wondering what evolutionary science has to say about the horrendous shooting at Parkland High School in Florida? If we evolved from apes, then is the gunman more an animal than a human being? If he's found guilty, then is it okay based on evolution that he be terminated by lethal injection? If an ape killed humans, even if for food, then it would be shot or euthanized. If Nikolas Cruz is a human being, then what does it say about evolution? For what reason does a mentally disabled man become a crazed killer showing no mercy and killing students at random? This man or animal fooled those closest to him enough for them to think he didn't have guns, but he did. He had numerous run ins with the law. Even if he was mentally ill, shouldn't we think that he was a bad mutation, i.e. more ape than human, and be put in jail like a killer animal to be euthanized if found guilty?

Some may say evolution has nothing to do with this. If evolution has nothing to do with this, then what purpose does it serve if we cannot apply it to today's society? We still have apes. We have humans. Thus, can we have bad mutations?

A simple fact - but perhaps too simple for many - that psychological problems tend to happen to virtually all, regardless of religious belief or any belief - and which will probably account for this particular incident. Evolutionary science has little to say about such things. Evolutionary science tends to tell us about how some traits are passed on from our ancestors, not about specific behaviours.

 

[james bond]

A simple fact - but perhaps too simple for many - that psychological problems tend to happen to virtually all, regardless of religious belief or any belief - and which will probably account for this particular incident. Evolutionary science has little to say about such things. Evolutionary science tends to tell us about how some traits are passed on from our ancestors, not about specific behaviours.

Sure, I can see why you would think that way because of your perception on evolution and how it is taught in schools. However, that's not the way history records evolutionary thinking as Hitler and social Darwinists used Darwinism in order to validate their hate for lower classes. Darwin's cousin developed Eugenics and it led to millions being killed. Darwin himself was influenced by pseudo-scientific racism. Today, we still have this racism with Planned Parenthood and their plans for black genocide through abortion. One of the worst of Darwin's theories is that we came from apes.

 

[james bond]

Evolution has so much morality as a photon. And it does not need to serve a purpose. Purposes are for the teleological inclined, not for unguided natural mechanisms.

Ciao

- viole

Heh. I'm not sure how I can discuss human morality vs a photon.

However, it was humans who developed ToE and evolutionary thinking. Thus, how evolutionists used this "science" has to be accepted for its consequences. It sounds strange to say science and religion are the same since they're different areas of study, but how it influences people has been similar. Wouldn't you say that religion influenced Christians, Islamics and Jews the same way? You wouldn't hesitate to blame Christians for killing and violence in the name of religion. What's so different was that from what Hitler, social Darwinists, Planned Parenthood and other Eugenicists did except they killed more.

I want to add that in Nikolas Cruz's case, we don't know whether it was his environment, his inherited genes or epigeneticswitches that caused him to do this. One doesn't necessarily cause violence. It's still up to the individual unless he was so mentally ill and afraid of what was tormenting him.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Sure, I can see why you would think that way because of your perception on evolution and how it is taught in schools.

I think it is more than just perception, given that the vast majority of scientists and intelligent individuals do recognise this. And we didn't get any of this taught in my school, as far as I can recollect. I had to read the stuff for myself.

However, that's not the way history records evolutionary thinking as Hitler and social Darwinists used Darwinism in order to validate their hate for lower classes.

Who gives a flying F for what any individual does, especially when they misuse such things, Get a grip, chum! Theories don't fall apart because of any particular lunatic using whatever they believe to promote their own agenda.

Darwin's cousin developed Eugenics and it led to millions being killed. Darwin himself was influenced by pseudo-scientific racism. Today, we still have this racism with Planned Parenthood and their plans for black genocide through abortion. One of the worst of Darwin's theories is that we came from apes.

Nah! The last bit is nonsense. We share a common ancestor with the Great Apes - about 98% or so of our genes. That is safely ignored by you? If so, then you will have to ignore a lot more science too probably. Sticky hiding to nothing lies that way.

 

[viole]

Heh. I'm not sure how I can discuss human morality vs a photon.

However, it was humans who developed ToE and evolutionary thinking. Thus, how evolutionists used this "science" has to be accepted for its consequences. It sounds strange to say science and religion are the same since they're different areas of study, but how it influences people has been similar. Wouldn't you say that religion influenced Christians, Islamics and Jews the same way? You wouldn't hesitate to blame Christians for killing and violence in the name of religion. What's so different was that from what Hitler, social Darwinists, Planned Parenthood and other Eugenicists did except they killed more.

I want to add that in Nikolas Cruz's case, we don't know whether it was his environment, his inherited genes or epigeneticswitches that caused him to do this. One doesn't necessarily cause violence. It's still up to the individual unless he was so mentally ill and afraid of what was tormenting him.

Well yes, it is possible that evolution influenced people to do things according to "the laws of nature". This is a variant of the natural fallacy: the idea that what nature does is inherently good or preferable. It is not much different from thinking that gays oppose the course of nature and are therefore bad or non-natural. Nature, and its mechanisms, are amoral. They are not good nor bad per se, they are simply mechanisms that mechanically follow their course without caring about our sensitivities.

Therefore, even if a crazy dictator decides that we should annihilate everyone with bad genes, that has no influence whatsoever on evolution being true or false, in the same way the truths of atomic physics do not depend on the fact that with it we are in the position to destroy the human race. The arbiter that allows us to tell whether evolution is true is evidence, not what we do with it, or whether we like it or not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, this only answers my question about evolutionary thinking being applied in a societal context. You state we cannot apply it that way. Yet, we had Social Darwinists and Nazis do exactly just that. The racists killed millions. Maybe billions. Even Darwin and his cronies thought there were lesser humans due to evolution. It was pseudoscientific racism. This was one of the products of evolutionary thinking.

What we have then are the social sciences to pick up the pieces for hard science's lack of "science." And we still have apes and we still have humans.

Science is not responsible for those who misuse science anymore than Christianity is repondsible for those who misuse the Bible for dark selfish purposes.

 

[Audie]

Science is not responsible for those who misuse science anymore than Christianity is repondsible for those who misuse the Bible for dark selfish purposes.

I dont think hitler had any better idea of evolution than our
deep-trailer park creationists do.