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

[shunyadragon]

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

As far as the science of evolution, and your demeaning view of Charles Darwin, we cannot agree.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Bizarro dishonesty!?!?!!?

 

[Sapiens]

Bizarro dishonesty!?!?!!?

Yup, makin' it up as they go. Not very Christian.

 

[columbus]

Yup, makin' it up as they go. Not very Christian.

It's very very Christian.
Tom

 

[sayak83]

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?

No.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Your inability to understand does not make that a fact. The man was quite liberal for his time. Dishonest creationists take his work out of context, nothing more.

By your standards Christianity is an unforgivably evil religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

When creationists refer to "Social Darwinism" they are usually talking about people that did not understand the theory of evolution and misused the theory as an excuse for their actions or beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Repeating your error does not make it true. You are not fooling anyone except perhaps for other creationists. You should quote from the original source, not use a quote mine, with a link to it. In case you did not know it quote mining is favorite technique of creationists, they lie by taking quotes out of context.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Darwin's theory is settled science in the scientific community. No other opinions matter, including those of us who happen to agree with the scientific consensus. It wouldn't matter to the scientists if we didn't, so why would they care what the creationists' objections were? If those objections were valid, one of their own would have made them themselves.

You might want to get your basic science right before attacking it. The scientists themselves agree that Darwin's theory is falsifiable - just not falsified, which is a strength of the theory. It's been falsifiable since its inception over a century-and-a-half ago, but has still never been falsified.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Can we assume that you would conclude that we should toss out the theory of evolution - presumably to replace it with some form of creationism?

If so, why would we do that? Why would we toss out a scientific theory that unifies and accounts for the available fossil, biological, and biogeographical evidence, includes a mechanism that accounts for the diversity and commonality of all life on earth, is falsifiable by virtue of predicting what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature but has never been falsified, and has led to technological advances that have improved the human condition, for an idea that can do none of that?

It's rhetorical question in need of no answer. Of course we wouldn't do that.

Would you divorce somebody to whom you have a happy, working marriage for someone you can't get along with or find common ground with because religious people recommended it? Of course not. Nobody would.

 

[ajarntham]

J. J. Thomson had less than 10% of the information we have today about sub-atomic particles. Question electrons!
Pasteur had less than 10% of the information we have today about bacteria and immune systems. Question inoculation!
Newton had less than 10% of the information we have today about planets, stars and galaxies. Question the inverse square law!
Aristotle had less than 10% of the information we have today about geography. Question the "global earth" theory!

 

[Augustus]

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.

I think you are having an argument with your imagination.

I have made precisely 1 argument: it is wrong to say Social Darwinism has 'nothing to do' with Darwin and the ToE.

That's it. Nothing else.

I'm unsure how you 'refuted' this by talking about Jesus and the Westboro Baptist Church.

"Galton was influenced by Darwin"
Yeah, well what about Jesus, eh? Jesus and the Westboro Baptists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you are having an argument with your imagination.

I have made precisely 1 argument: it is wrong to say Social Darwinism has 'nothing to do' with Darwin and the ToE.

That's it. Nothing else.

I'm unsure how you 'refuted' this by talking about Jesus and the Westboro Baptist Church.

"Galton was influenced by Darwin"
Yeah, well what about Jesus, eh? Jesus and the Westboro Baptists.

So you are still stuck on your red herring.

By the way, you do not know how to use memes properly. But keep practicing. You will get it sooner or later.

 

[Augustus]

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

I don't think it had a specific name, but was part of broader scientific, sociological and political discourse.

Scientific racialism became popular in the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment eras, Malthus discussed things that would fall under the category of Social Darwinism in the 18th C, but these were discussions of population, etc.

After the popularisation of Darwinism, these ideas were integrated into a broader evolutionary framework, along with eugenics (both positive and negative forms).

This is a whole interconnected network of ideas, and Social Darwinism was not necessarily seen as something distinct from Darwinism. For many people it was self-evident that it must also apply to human society.

It certainly didn't have the negative connotations that it has today and were as much associated with progressive politics as abject racism.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

It is hardly the same token. You are comparing a specific event in time with a continuous, ongoing process.

There is also the not inconsequential fact that such fresh look and reexamination has, in fact, been going on since the very start. It is not likely to ever stop, either.

Darwin and his findings hardly existed in a vacuum. It just turned out that he was the one to first compilate his findings in a clear way. He did not invent evolution, he just described it.

Are you aware of Wallace's role in finally encouraging the publication of the theory?

 

[LuisDantas]

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%

That might say something about his insight, but it is quite immaterial to the validity of his findings.

It is not like they have not been tested since. Quite on the contrary, and to a lot of useful conclusions.

 

[Augustus]

So you are still stuck on your red herring.

Let's try something more productive.

What argument do you actually think I have made? And why do you disagree with it?

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

What an entertaining narrative, comrade.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's try something more productive.

What argument do you actually think I have made? And why do you disagree with it?

Nah, I am done with you, for now.

 

[Augustus]

What an entertaining narrative, comrade.

Factually correct too

I find it quite entertaining how people who prize rationality are so adverse to the idea that scientific perspectives from centuries ago don't always match either modern science or contemporary PC norms.