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

[whirlingmerc]

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.

For example Dawin himself was a social darwinist as his book put down other races like the Irish, Blacks and Chinese but be actually ordered some australean aborigines to be captured and brought back to England live for taxidermy later.... everyone agrees that was both a consequence of his theories and seriously flawed

 

[Revoltingest]

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%

Einstein, Hubble, & others came up with cromulent observations
& theories by examining far less than 1% of 1% of 1% of stars.
Does this debunk all of modern cosmology? Nah!
One must examine the merit (predictive value ) of theories.

 

[whirlingmerc]

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.

sadly social Darwinism was part of the book 'origins of the species and the preservation of favored races" where the English were at the top, Irish no so good, blacks and chinese really not doing well... Darwin clearly was a social Darwinist and had some flawed views on anthropology

He didn't mind disagreeing with virtually all the scientific establishment of his day. Now Mendel had more of a grasp of genetics in that era of time and he was a creationist, where Darwin had no understanding of genetics and was more of a lamarkian view which science rejects

 

[Revoltingest]

sadly social Darwinism was part of the book 'origins of the species and the preservation of favored races" where the English were at the top, Irish no so good, blacks and chinese really not doing well... Darwin clearly was a social Darwinist and had some flawed views on anthropology

I recommend providing excerpts or links supporting such claims.
Not saying you're wrong....but I see many wrong claims on RF.
So if it really matters to your argument, tis best to give evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

My understanding is that social Darwinism refers not to human programs such as eugenics and genocides, but to "naturalisitic" processes (unplanned and unintended) such as the survival of the best of two restaurants, for example, competing for scarce resources (customers in a market that can support only one of them - perhaps a small town).

The one that is more efficient, that is, offers the best combination of food, service, ambiance, prices, and convenience, will survive - prosper even - as the other goes extinct. That is the cultural equivalent of biological fitness.

That, Adam Smith's invisible hand, is much closer to Darwin's theory than what Darwin's detractors call social Darwinism. And there, too, it is a powerful process that leads to net improvement over time without plan or effort.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For example Dawin himself was a social darwinist as his book put down other races like the Irish, Blacks and Chinese but be actually ordered some australean aborigines to be captured and brought back to England live for taxidermy later.... everyone agrees that was both a consequence of his theories and seriously flawed

Those kinds of ideas antedate Darwin by millennia, and perhaps should be called social Jehovahaism, as when Jehovah put down other cultures like the Cannanites, Amorites, Perrizites, and Hittites, called the Hebrews "chosen" (early suprematists), and ordered the genocide of these other peoples.

 

[columbus]

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%

Nevertheless, Darwin's theory was supported by evidence that he shared with the whole human race. It was falsifiable. Anybody else could find more and better evidence by looking for it. It was controversial at the time and people came up with mountains of evidence on the subject. Turned out that Darwin's theory was supported by the vast majority of objective facts and evidence.

That stands in stark contrast to the Creationist theory for which there is next to no evidence that can be distinguished from legend and delusions. Yeah, primitive people who couldn't tell the difference between bats and birds or explain where babies come from did write stories. Some ancient lackies of Rome deemed some of the implausible stories magically true, that's called "canonization".
Now, modern people who can't distinguish evidenced Truth from ancient lore expect to run the government and tell me that I can't marry my partner of 20+ years because "God says....".

No. Just NO. Christians consistently demonstrate that they are making it up as they go along. Nothing to do with God.
Tom

 

[QuestioningMind]

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?

The scientific community has been vigorously testing Darwin's theory for over 150 years now. It has been 15 decades of continuous reexamination and taking a fresh look. That's how the scientific method works.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Nevertheless, Darwin's theory was supported by evidence that he shared with the whole human race. It was falsifiable. Anybody else could find more and better evidence by looking for it. It was controversial at the time and people came up with mountains of evidence on the subject. Turned out that Darwin's theory was supported by the vast majority of objective facts and evidence.

That stands in stark contrast to the Creationist theory for which there is next to no evidence that can be distinguished from legend and delusions. Yeah, primitive people who couldn't tell the difference between bats and birds or explain where babies come from did write stories. Some ancient lackies of Rome deemed some of the implausible stories magically true, that's called "canonization".
Now, modern people who can't distinguish evidenced Truth from ancient lore expect to run the government and tell me that I can't marry my partner of 20+ years because "God says....".

No. Just NO. Christians consistently demonstrate that they are making it up as they go along. Nothing to do with God.
Tom

Darwinism is in fact significantly falsifiable. One of many ways is to look at how genetic information can run down which has been seen in the simulation engine Mendel's Accountant

Typically there is too much hand waving insisting of evidence that is more akin to the emperors new cloths when it comes to Darwinism and what comes to mind is the Ida fossil which in latin was a missing link at last... essentially a confession the missing link was and in fact still is missing

Look no further than the peppered moths.... you start with black and white moths... you end with black and white moths .... no new genetic information... and yet that is one of a handful of classic arguments for Darwinism,... it proved nothing

 

[Sapiens]

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.



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



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.

Wiki: Fitness (often denoted as ω in population genetics models) is the quantitative representation of natural and sexual selection within evolutionary biology. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by individuals of the specified genotype or phenotype. The fitness of a genotype is manifested through its phenotype, which is also affected by the developmental environment. The fitness of a given phenotype can also be different in different selective environments.

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%

As I said before:

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.
​

You just made your case worse and raised the positive estimate of the correctness of Darwin's theory by two more orders of magnitude from 1,000 to 100,000. When you are standing in a hole it is usually a good idea to stop digging.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Wiki: Fitness (often denoted as

or ω in population genetics models) is the quantitative representation of natural and sexual selection within evolutionary biology. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by individuals of the specified genotype or phenotype. The fitness of a genotype is manifested through its phenotype, which is also affected by the developmental environment. The fitness of a given phenotype can also be different in different selective environments.
You just made your case worse and raised the estimate by two more orders of magnitude from 1000 to 100,000. When you are standing in a hole it is usually a good idea to stop digging.

We can agree Darwin had hundreds out of 1.6 million hence only a tiny fraction of species to look at and no genetic knowledge... hence my point that he is much worse off than the Oswald case stands

 

[whirlingmerc]

Its actually rather amazing when evolutionists look at evidence they see darwinism darwinism darwinism no matter what. Its like an inkblot experiment.... here;s a fossil what do you see? EVOLUTION!!! Here's chimp bones what do you see? APE MEN!!!

Lucy for example.... toe protruding perpendicular.... basically a thumb on the foot speaks of a tree dweller not an habitual upright walker... but legs angled like a trapeze artist, cursed hands for hanging and a pelvis tiled for tree balance not walking... also say Lusy was a tree dweller

Entry into the skull of the spine angled like a canine, a brain much smaller than a modern chimp , skull shaped like chimp in slope and eye sockets not human at all. Doesn't make a good case but she was the best darwinists had, right?

And oh by the way... latest evidence is Lucy was a guy monkey
Now Cro Magnan... now are classified as part of Homo.... those would be human

 

[Sapiens]

We can agree Darwin had hundreds out of 1.6 million hence only a tiny fraction of species to look at and no genetic knowledge... hence my point that he is much worse off than the Oswald case stands

You have it quite backwards. Darwin, with a tiny fraction of the data available today, got it mostly right. Even with all the additional data that has been gathered, Darwin appears, both in light of his original data and all the data available today, to have been correct. The additional data, that has failed to falsify Darwin even in the least, buttresses his arguments. The tiny ripple of creationist ideas washes harmless against Darwin's buttress.

 

[Altfish]

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.

What was Social Darwinism called before Darwin...because it can't have been called Social Darwinism.. because no one had heard of Darwin

 

[shunyadragon]

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%

Still does not address the issue that scientists have falsified the science of evolution initiated by Darwin beyond any reasonable doubt, and completed what Darwin initiated regardless of whether Darwin started with 1% or 15%.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

What do you get when a Jig Saw Puzzle Master describes the history of life on earth?

You get a Canaanite/Ugarit Creation mythology designed by an incompetent engineer.

 

[whirlingmerc]

You have it quite backwards. Darwin, with a tiny fraction of the data available today, got it mostly right. Even with all the additional data that has been gathered, Darwin appears, both in light of his original data and all the data available today, to have been correct. The additional data, that has failed to falsify Darwin even in the least, buttresses his arguments. The tiny ripple of creationist ideas washes harmless against Darwin's buttress.

problem on two counts that would be dogma not science for one... for another you assert Darwinism have never been falsified... saying it over and over doesn't make it true

In a technical sense Steven Gould's punctuated equilibrium set classic Darwinism aside
and a concession the fossil evidence didn't materialize as hoped

 

[shunyadragon]

That would be dogma not science

Explain,?!?!?

From: dogma definition - Google Search

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. "the Christian dogma of the Trinity"
synonyms: teaching, belief, tenet, principle, precept, maxim, article of faith, canon

Nothing in science is incontrovertibly true by definition. This is more true of your religious beliefs. The knowledge of science has evolved and changed through falsification and prediction of theories and hypothesis. This process has falsified the science of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[ajarntham]

For example Darwin himself . . . actually ordered some australean aborigines to be captured and brought back to England live for taxidermy later.

This never happened. Nothing remotely resembling this ever happened. He didn't "order" this, he didn't request it, he didn't suggest it.

 

[ajarntham]

sadly social Darwinism was part of the book 'origins of the species and the preservation of favored races" where the English were at the top, Irish no so good, blacks and chinese really not doing well...

If you think Origin of Species contained a discussion of the relative standing of human races, particularly the superiority of the English and the inferiority of blacks and Chinese, you have obviously never read the book, or even seen a halfway decent summary of its contents.