If Darwin or the FBI had less than 15% of the data for a case

[whirlingmerc]

For example at the time of the association of John Kennedy, the FBI had about 15% of the information for the case that exists today. Does that warrant a fresh look or reexamination

And by the same token, since Darwin had less that 15% of the mammal species to examine and no genetic information or theory to go on, does that warrant a fresh look or reexamination?

 

[whirlingmerc]

And another great interview looks like it's giving Darwin a headache ... poor Charles ...

 

[idav]

And by the same token, since Darwin had less that 15% of the mammal species to examine and no genetic information or theory to go on, does that warrant a fresh look or reexamination?

We have re-examined it as that is what science does and Darwin passes with flying colors. In the nineties they started mapping the entire human genetic genome and since then we have done that and slowly add more to the list, chimp etc. not believing in evolution is just denial anymore these days.

 

[Sapiens]

For over 150 years, with each new discovery and hypothesis, Darwinism has undergone reexamination and has never been found wanting. If Dawin only had 15% of the mammalian information then today we are 16 2/3 time more positive of the correctness of his theory. But ... that's just the fossil record, the fields of immunology, genetics, genomics, and molecular biology have each contributed as much if not more, that takes us to better than 83 times and let's conservatively round that up to 100 for zoology, botany, and biology (beyond those already considered). Then we must expand beyond mammals to all the other living organisms ... would 1,000 times more positive be out of line?

Jeanson's entire analogy falls apart as soon as you realize that species are not composed of homogeneous individuals, there is great variability, no two (save twins) are close to identical. To make his puzzle come close to being sensible each piece would have to be composed not of species of individuals.

 

[whirlingmerc]

For over 150 years, with each new discovery and hypothesis, Darwinism has undergone reexamination and has never been found wanting. If Dawin only had 15% of the mammalian information then today we are 16 2/3 time more positive of the correctness of his theory. But ... that's just the mammals, the fields of immunology, genetics, genomics, and molecular biology have each contributed as much if not more. That takes us to, at least, better than 83 times and let's conservatively round that up to 100 for zoology, botany, and biology (beyond those tose fields already considered). Then we must expand beyond mammals to all the other living organisms ... would 1,000 times more positive be out of line? The bottom line is that Nate Jeanson has no idea of what he is talking about ... but that's not unexpected, his graduate training is in medicine, not evolution ... and despite his Harvard degree he has no grasp of logic.

Never?

Interestingly Darwin himself in his original edition spoke of virtually all eminent scientists disagreeing with him and so Darwin would be the first to say you should not make the current scientific consensus the bar of truth

and yes there are myriad problems with Darwin. Animals symbiosis together being just one of many which he admitted another being social Darwinism which he was a proponent and most people recognize as flawed

In the end, survival of the fittest doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest. It just doesn't

 

[shunyadragon]

For example at the time of the association of John Kennedy, the FBI had about 15% of the information for the case that exists today. Does that warrant a fresh look or reexamination

And by the same token, since Darwin had less that 15% of the mammal species to examine and no genetic information or theory to go on, does that warrant a fresh look or reexamination?

Over the last century and a half the scientists have come up with the other 85%. The science of evolution has always been under critical examination since Charles Darwin, and passed muster as the best falsified explanation for the history of life on earth.

 

[Sapiens]

Never?

Interestingly Darwin himself in his original edition spoke of virtually all eminent scientists disagreeing with him and so Darwin would be the first to say you should not make the current scientific consensus the bar of truth

It was introduced as a new finding into an almost unknown and empty field, to attempt to analogize a new and clearly wrongheaded (especially those predisposed to believe for nonscientific reasons) idea making an appearance on a now well know and crowded field, is sheer foolishness.

and yes there are myriad problems with Darwin. Animals symbiosis together being just one of many which he admitted another being social Darwinism which he was a proponent and most people recognize as flawed

Symbiosis presents no issue ... just try google. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with either Darwin or the ToE.

In the end, survival of the fittest doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest. It just doesn't

That's because they are not connected. It is survival of the fittest not creation of the fittest. Arrival is the creation of raw material ... mutation. Speciation is the effect of natural selection and time, favoring one mutation and hindering another.

 

[Augustus]

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with either Darwin or the ToE.

While it is fallacious to invoke Social Darwinism as an argument that the ToE is incorrect, saying it has 'nothing to do' with Darwin or the ToE is also wrong.

SD does predate Darwin, and while he seems to have accepted some aspects of SD, he was not a significant figure in the creation or promotion of its ideas. The ToE, and Darwin's work, had a significant influence on other Social Darwinists though, particularly his cousin Francis Galton.

SD was generally considered to be a part of the same phenomenon, rather than this separate thing it is viewed as today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For example at the time of the association of John Kennedy, the FBI had about 15% of the information for the case that exists today. Does that warrant a fresh look or reexamination

And by the same token, since Darwin had less that 15% of the mammal species to examine and no genetic information or theory to go on, does that warrant a fresh look or reexamination?

Bad analogy. 100% of the evidence supports the theory of evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creationism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

survival of the fittest doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest. It just doesn't

Nor need it.

Survival of the fittest is a misnomer. It's actually the flourishing and reproduction of the most fecund that matters, which depends on more than survival. The fittest are those who transcend merely surviving and go on to reproduce most prodigiously. Surviving without competing successfully for fertile mates and being fertile yourself is not good enough.

Furthermore, Darwin never claimed that nature's fitness test generates genetic and morphologic variation - so-called "arrival of the fittest." The test merely judges these variations, not create them.

And another great interview looks like it's giving Darwin a headache ... poor Charles ...

Yet it's the Christians taking the aspirin. They've been nauseous for over a century. The scientific community is indifferent to religious objections.

Interestingly Darwin himself in his original edition spoke of virtually all eminent scientists disagreeing with him and so Darwin would be the first to say you should not make the current scientific consensus the bar of truth

I would imagine that he would also say that religious ideas aren't any kind of bar of truth. They're faith based, and it is clear that any method of determining truth like faith that allows one to belief either of two mutually contradictory positions cannot be a path to truth, since at least one of them must be wrong.

 

[blü 2]

Never?

Interestingly Darwin himself in his original edition spoke of virtually all eminent scientists disagreeing with him and so Darwin would be the first to say you should not make the current scientific consensus the bar of truth

and yes there are myriad problems with Darwin. Animals symbiosis together being just one of many which he admitted another being social Darwinism which he was a proponent and most people recognize as flawed

In the end, survival of the fittest doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest. It just doesn't

But that's just the old ploy of moving the goalposts from evolution to abiogenesis.

And just as with evolution, there are two basic views about abiogenesis. First, that it was done by magic. And second, that it arose due to natural causes.

At least we know natural causes happen.

 

[Sapiens]

While it is fallacious to invoke Social Darwinism as an argument that the ToE is incorrect, saying it has 'nothing to do' with Darwin or the ToE is also wrong.

SD does predate Darwin, and while he seems to have accepted some aspects of SD, he was not a significant figure in the creation or promotion of its ideas. The ToE, and Darwin's work, had a significant influence on other Social Darwinists though, particularly his cousin Francis Galton.

SD was generally considered to be a part of the same phenomenon, rather than this separate thing it is viewed as today.

I'll go with today's reality rather than yesterday's fables thank you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Never?

Interestingly Darwin himself in his original edition spoke of virtually all eminent scientists disagreeing with him and so Darwin would be the first to say you should not make the current scientific consensus the bar of truth.

This is not what Darwin said concerning his proposed Theory of Evolution. The bar of 'knowledge' (not 'truth') is the falsification of theories and hypothesis, and NOT scientific consensus.

. . . and yes there are myriad problems with Darwin. Animals symbiosis together being just one of many which he admitted another being social Darwinism which he was a proponent and most people recognize as flawed

In the end, survival of the fittest doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest. It just doesn't

This a rather warped, biased, does not reflect what Darwin proposed, nor the history of the science of evolution since. Your characterization of what is the survival of the fiteist does not reflect the reality of the science of evolution.

 

[Augustus]

I'll go with today's reality rather than yesterday's fables thank you.

Cool.

Today's reality doesn't actually change the historical influence of Darwin and the ToE on Social Darwinism though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cool.

Today's reality doesn't actually change the historical influence of Darwin and the ToE on Social Darwinism though.

It appears that you are trying to blame the theory of evolution and Darwin for Social Darwinism. By that reckoning Christianity and Jesus are to blame for the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[Jose Fly]

For example at the time of the association of John Kennedy, the FBI had about 15% of the information for the case that exists today. Does that warrant a fresh look or reexamination

And by the same token, since Darwin had less that 15% of the mammal species to examine and no genetic information or theory to go on, does that warrant a fresh look or reexamination?

If you believe so, then get to work. Write up your arguments and submit them to a relevant scientific journal. Not sure if you're aware of this, but posting Youtube videos on a religious forum isn't going to accomplish anything.

 

[Augustus]

It appears that you are trying to blame the theory of evolution and Darwin for Social Darwinism. By that reckoning Christianity and Jesus are to blame for the Westboro Baptist Church.

I'm not trying to 'blame' anything. This is actual history.

Social Darwinism and eugenics were intertwined with Darwinian and evolutionary scientific thought in the 19th and early 20th C.

The term eugenics was even created by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, who was very much influenced by Darwin.

 

[columbus]

And by the same token, since Darwin had less that 15% of the mammal species to examine and no genetic information or theory to go on,

The fact that Conservative Bible based Christians can say things like this tells me a lot about their grasp on reality.
On the one hand, they can't believe in evolution because there just isn't enough evidence to reach their high standards for truth.
But then they insist that a handful of implausible stories about Jesus from 2000 years ago, by anonymous authors, is sufficient evidence that Jesus Resurrected and I shouldn't be allowed to get married.

To me that is proof(compelling evidence) that Christianity is a fictional creation of poorly educated people. That Christianity has nothing to do with god at all.
Just one proof of many.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not trying to 'blame' anything. This is actual history.

Social Darwinism and eugenics were intertwined with Darwinian and evolutionary scientific thought in the 19th and early 20th C.

The term eugenics was even created by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, who was very much influenced by Darwin.

And all sorts of evil Christians are intertwined with Christianity.

So what?

ETA: You really should be face palming your incredibly poor argument. Not the point that refutes it.

 

[whirlingmerc]

The fact that Conservative Bible based Christians can say things like this tells me a lot about their grasp on reality.
On the one hand, they can't believe in evolution because there just isn't enough evidence to reach their high standards for truth.
But then they insist that a handful of implausible stories about Jesus from 2000 years ago, by anonymous authors, is sufficient evidence that Jesus Resurrected and I shouldn't be allowed to get married.

To me that is proof(compelling evidence) that Christianity is a fictional creation of poorly educated people. That Christianity has nothing to do with god at all.
Just one proof of many.
Tom

On a level of fact Darwin had less than 15% of the mammals on earth to examine for his conclusions and 0% of genetics Since there are actually more like 1.6 million species in existence when you add insects, mice, shrews, bats... Darwin had much less that 1% of the data and hence I was being generous with the 15%