The assumptions behind evolution?

[Sapiens]

2/3 of doctors were members of the nazi organization for doctors, at the start of when Hitler got to power. (eh, the 2/3 is from memory, but it was high).

Currently 20 percent of the world population lives under a eugenics regime in China. This is not limited to the infamous 1 child policy, but there are also diverse laws against reproduction of people with hereditary diseases and mental illness. Some years ago there was talk of a company in France making a database of the genetics of all the Chinese. The eugenics is also much thematic of present Chinese culture, so to say, it is not a limited disease control issue in the back of people's minds, but very much at the forefront in their mind.

From wiki:

Social Darwinism was formally introduced to China through the translation by Yan Fu of Huxley's Evolution and Ethics, in the course of an extensive series of translations of influential Western thought.[36] Yan's translation strongly impacted Chinese scholars because he added national elements not found in the original. He understood Spencer's sociology as "not merely analytical and descriptive, but prescriptive as well," and saw Spencer building on Darwin, whom Yan summarized thus:

Peoples and living things struggle for survival. At first, species struggle with species; they as [people] gradually progress, there is a struggle between one social group and another. The weak invariably become the prey of the strong, the stupid invariably become subservient to the clever."[37]

By the 1920s, social Darwinism found expression in the promotion of eugenics by the Chinese sociologist Pan Guangdan. When Chiang Kai-shek started the New Life movement in 1934, he ... harked back to theories of Social Darwinism, writing that "only those who readapt themselves to new conditions, day by day, can live properly. When the life of a people is going through this process of readaptation, it has to remedy its own defects, and get rid of those elements which become useless. Then we call it new life."[38

 

[AllanV]

Sanford had flush his scientific achievements down the toilet, the moment he became advocate for Intelligent Design, and is now a joke among the geneticists.

What is achieved now is getting below or in between the point where the whole life and the cells are influenced by the environment What is being seen now is just above the subatomic where nature has no influence at all.

"nature selects the whole individual if selection works at all, in the Human"
"nature can not make changes just above the subatomic level, it is not seen."

It is uncertain where life actually starts and exactly what life is at this magnification of the functioning within the cell.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This probably why it was read that the theory feeds into the hands of the advocates of eugenics. This is actually being worked out now to some degree it is subtle.

I'm not really familiar enough to comment. On the current goings of eugenics.

2/3 of doctors were members of the nazi organization for doctors, at the start of when Hitler got to power. (eh, the 2/3 is from memory, but it was high).

Currently 20 percent of the world population lives under a eugenics regime in China. This is not limited to the infamous 1 child policy, but there are also diverse laws against reproduction of people with hereditary diseases and mental illness. Some years ago there was talk of a company in France making a database of the genetics of all the Chinese. The eugenics is also much thematic of present Chinese culture, so to say, it is not a limited disease control issue in the back of people's minds, but very much at the forefront in their mind.

What does hitler or China have to do with anything?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm not really familiar enough to comment. On the current goings of eugenics.


What does hitler or China have to do with anything?

you asked when and where did the patrolling of reproductive rights by doctors happen.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Did you watch the video? Dr John Sanford.
experience in genetic engineering that will feed a hungry world.

Insight into the function of the genome in the cell
The instruction set is like a superior operating system.
100 trillion cells in the human body
The genome project map completion in 2001 filling in the gaps continues.
The 2007 phase two, encode project, functionality over 90% in the genome more study needed.
to date the study shows that there are overlapping messages, several overlaps more than 50%,
In the genome both strands are read forward and back ward showing data compression.

Challenge to evolutionary randomness and selection over time. No affirmation of world view (7.00 min on the video)

Nature selects whole individual if selections works at all. Human

Nature can not make changes just above the subatomic level, it is not seen.

Population geneticists say, human is degenerating 1-5% per generation.

Personal genetic entropy is why a human dies.

Accumulating mutations are added on at a rate of 100 per generation and passed on. Aging and death are being passed on.

Why we are not dead one hundred times over.
WHY WE ARE NOT DEAD ONE HUNDRED TIMES OVER - Charlesworth - 2013 - Evolution - Wiley Online Library
This article has to be paid for but a small part of it is on this site.


(PhysOrg.com) -- Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.

Read more at: Humans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientist

What is interesting on this site is the chart of population growth.

The time period is very short when the human population grew very fast. With mutations apparent in the genome there is no time for positive evolution. The mutations will be spread and continue through the large population.
This article goes through a few instances and states that there are very few if any positive mutations.
Beneficial Mutation–Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on Positive Selection

The thought occurs in conclusion that there is a will operating universally that facilitates change for all species depending what the pressure of the earth environment is providing.
Man is an exception where his own separate will operates through what ever choices are made. Man does his own selection to a point. Two fit motivated people may get together or two not so.

Just watched the video.

My suggestion to you is for you to actually go and read the current scientific research on the encoding project to see what the scientists who work on it actually say. They have answered these "problems". This is a creationist trying to sell his book. See what the real science is without someone trying to tell you something. He has a lot right but a lot of conclusions wrong.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

you asked when and where did the patrolling of reproductive rights by doctors happen.

The NAZI groups were not led by doctors but rather the doctors were involved. And China also isn't led by doctors but rather the government.

I don't support either one but neither actually have anything to do with the secular worldview.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The NAZI groups were not led by doctors but rather the doctors were involved. And China also isn't led by doctors but rather the government.

I don't support either one but neither actually have anything to do with the secular worldview.

oh so now we have already begun with twisting history to defend the new ideology of the secularist worldview.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

oh so now we have already begun with twisting history to defend the new ideology of the secularist worldview.

Orly? So Hitler was a Doctor? The Chinese Communists are run by doctors? Or is it the other way around? Tell me honestly.

And secondly I have stated from the begining that NAZIism and communism are not moral systems. They are 1) a political party and 2) an attempt at a form of government.

If you want to make an argument either of them were secular then be my guest.

 

[AllanV]

Just watched the video.

My suggestion to you is for you to actually go and read the current scientific research on the encoding project to see what the scientists who work on it actually say. They have answered these "problems". This is a creationist trying to sell his book. See what the real science is without someone trying to tell you something. He has a lot right but a lot of conclusions wrong.

Dr. John Sanford says that the conclusions he has will not be taken up by others. It needs ongoing work. I am not buying his book.

I know God is the creator and is immediate. The experience of God was not sought after but occurred in a quiet time. The difference between my mind and the mind of an immortal was shown within the mind that does not measure up. (the word sin means "to not measure up")

The human consciousness or mind has attachments within it that prompt and tempt. These are in the personality with strong self belief and are learned traits and determine responses in the emphasis placed on speech and also body language. These are read by another person who has to mostly defend in the mind to maintain own self belief. There are imbalances of course, as shown when some one is gullible or uses their mental strength to dominate. It can be subtle.

Most know how this works but is natural and taken for granted, but the problem comes with conflict.

The attachments within the mind are mostly hidden but they hijack the will some what. They shape the way a person learns responses and also how a person behaves when the opportunity is there.

The religion isn't meant to be religious as it is known now but is a way of over riding the natural responses with its mind and renewing it. Religiousness creates as many barriers in the learned responses as any other human endeavor.

The benefits are for a future and it is explained as a dimensional technology where an unruly and biologically trained mind is vulnerable and will not survive.

 

[outhouse]

I know God is the creator and is immediate.

"I think" it is wise to be careful in what one thinks he knows.


I know, men create gods.

 

[AllanV]

"I think" it is wise to be careful in what one thinks he knows.


I know, men create gods.

I didn't think you had an oxymoron in you but there it is.

You explain how the energy gets into the atom and the life gets into the cell.

God wears light as a garment. We have our being and presence in God.
God is an energizing Spirit. God is a life giving Spirit.
Every object takes up space and God is in there also.

I knew this as true even before the scriptures were read.

 

[David M]

This Dr John Sanford?

Kansas Evolution Hearings: John Sanford and Robert DiSilvestro​

Sanford is a professional creationist and his computer model is completely worthless.

A model can only be considered relevant IF its results conform to reality for known real-world parameters, if it cannot reflect reality it cannot predict anything in a valid way.

If you apply it to any species with a short reproductive cycle the program comes out with the prediction that the species will become extinct in a relatively low number of generations (as it does for humans), for a species such as the common mouse they should not exist any more according to Sanford as they have been around for thousands of generations in recent history and his program predicts that "genetic load" should have led to their extinction. His program cannot model reality and is thus completely invalid.

 

[gnostic]

What is achieved now is getting below or in between the point where the whole life and the cells are influenced by the environment What is being seen now is just above the subatomic where nature has no influence at all.

"nature selects the whole individual if selection works at all, in the Human"
"nature can not make changes just above the subatomic level, it is not seen."

It is uncertain where life actually starts and exactly what life is at this magnification of the functioning within the cell.

Natural Selection, and all other evolutionary mechanisms, don't deal with with a single individual human, AllanV. Natural Selection deal with changes (passing genes) over population over period of time ("time" as in x-number of generations).

You know very well that sexual selection work, like people breeding specific breed of horses for specific purposes, for instances, like breed horses for speed in horse races or horses for endurance for long journey or working horses in ranches.

If sexual selection actually work, why not natural selection?

Let me give you one example of species of animal, that even you could understand - bears.

Now most species of large (wild) bears (eg brown bears, black bears, etc) generally hibernate during the cold winter seasons.

But the polar bears (Ursus maritimus) lived mostly lived in regions, within the arctic circle. The most notable physical feature is that their hides are white. But more importantly, they don't hibernate like their southern cousins, during the winter. They thrive in icy regions; and they can actually swim in the seas, to hunt for fishes or seals.

It is in their genes and in their physique that are "fit" for the arctic regions. They didn't just appear like this, magically or because of divine intervention. They didn't magically change their appearances, physical anatomy or way of life, overnight.

Now if we were to suddenly put a group of 6 healthy brown bear in the middle of wild arctic, do you think they will survive to breed new generation of brown bears?

Maybe they could, but most likely they starve or freeze to death, because they are not fit to suddenly live in new and much harsher environment.

At some points, the polar bears and the other species of wild bears shared common ancestry, but diverged at some point in time, in which both were suited (or fit) in their respective environments.

Natural selection works; you just don't understand it. Natural Selection provide knowledge of life and how they change and survive, without the need of any deity.

Do you think that God magically put the polar bears in the north?

God-did-it mentality is just lazy and ignorant solution by people who don't understand how nature work.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

God-did-it mentality is just lazy and ignorant solution by people who don't understand how nature work.

It does often look that way. I also think people often struggle to imagine the geological time scales involved, it's really all too much to grapple with.

 

[gnostic]

It does often look that way. I also think people often struggle to imagine the geological time scales involved, it's really all too much to grapple with.

That the sort of image I am getting from creationists, and with some theists.

(Not all theists are the same. Many are better educated than others, with regards to science. AllanV is not the better one.)

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Orly? So Hitler was a Doctor? The Chinese Communists are run by doctors? Or is it the other way around? Tell me honestly.

And secondly I have stated from the begining that NAZIism and communism are not moral systems. They are 1) a political party and 2) an attempt at a form of government.

If you want to make an argument either of them were secular then be my guest.

Secularism does not exclude religion. Secularism means that there are no religious requirements. It is just an activity like washing the dishes, which either religious or non religious can do. Secular societies can be 100 percent religious.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That the sort of image I am getting from creationists, and with some theists.

(Not all theists are the same. Many are better educated than others, with regards to science. AllanV is not the better one.)

It's a case of not caring about evolution theory. Evolution theory is found to be boring, regardless if it is true or not. A case of only being interested in how things are created in the universe, how things are chosen. Because when you look in terms of how things are chosen, then you have the direct link to the spirit which chooses, which is somewhat emotionally meaningful.

 

[AllanV]

Sanford is a professional creationist and his computer model is completely worthless.

A model can only be considered relevant IF its results conform to reality for known real-world parameters, if it cannot reflect reality it cannot predict anything in a valid way.

If you apply it to any species with a short reproductive cycle the program comes out with the prediction that the species will become extinct in a relatively low number of generations (as it does for humans), for a species such as the common mouse they should not exist any more according to Sanford as they have been around for thousands of generations in recent history and his program predicts that "genetic load" should have led to their extinction. His program cannot model reality and is thus completely invalid.

John Sanford was an atheist evolutionist who became a theist and then Christian of what type is unknown. He is one of a team and of many others who are unable to explain evolution in view of their own work.

There is work showing that some of the best "evidence" for evolution merely assumes it.
Your comments make it seem as though intelligent people are brainless.
Experience shows that ability in practical application falls short when people target an individual rather than the problem.

The program was developed on a mainframe computer. Memory size does limit it. There are different parameters that are set with input data and the program could be made to come out wrong.
The input data is drawn from known tested parameters but it is variation the program is able to deal with.

The idea of the mouse is being misapplied because there is a paper on the evolutionary assumption it could turn into an elephant.

An organism that has pressure on it from a changing environment could theoretically change to adapt, but it is more likely to degrade.
The idea a mouse can become an elephant is difficult when information is lost.

There are problems that are expressed as "never ending" in evolutionary biology.
Well made equipment is in its design and the human mind with all its attribute or flaws tend to glory in their own achievements and then ignore the obvious.

 

[AllanV]

Natural Selection, and all other evolutionary mechanisms, don't deal with with a single individual human, AllanV. Natural Selection deal with changes (passing genes) over population over period of time ("time" as in x-number of generations).

You know very well that sexual selection work, like people breeding specific breed of horses for specific purposes, for instances, like breed horses for speed in horse races or horses for endurance for long journey or working horses in ranches.

If sexual selection actually work, why not natural selection?

Let me give you one example of species of animal, that even you could understand - bears.

Now most species of large (wild) bears (eg brown bears, black bears, etc) generally hibernate during the cold winter seasons.

But the polar bears (Ursus maritimus) lived mostly lived in regions, within the arctic circle. The most notable physical feature is that their hides are white. But more importantly, they don't hibernate like their southern cousins, during the winter. They thrive in icy regions; and they can actually swim in the seas, to hunt for fishes or seals.

It is in their genes and in their physique that are "fit" for the arctic regions. They didn't just appear like this, magically or because of divine intervention. They didn't magically change their appearances, physical anatomy or way of life, overnight.

Now if we were to suddenly put a group of 6 healthy brown bear in the middle of wild arctic, do you think they will survive to breed new generation of brown bears?

Maybe they could, but most likely they starve or freeze to death, because they are not fit to suddenly live in new and much harsher environment.

At some points, the polar bears and the other species of wild bears shared common ancestry, but diverged at some point in time, in which both were suited (or fit) in their respective environments.

Natural selection works; you just don't understand it. Natural Selection provide knowledge of life and how they change and survive, without the need of any deity.

Do you think that God magically put the polar bears in the north?

God-did-it mentality is just lazy and ignorant solution by people who don't understand how nature work.

Everything you are saying suggests that the point is being missed.

There is a God and God is living and active. Everything is made to appear as it is seen at every instant.
God is the energy in the Atom and the life in the seed.
Every object takes up space and God is also in that space.

It is highly probable that if the environmental conditions place pressure on an organism it will change over time. An organism is not designed to change too quickly but it is suggested with some species design that this could happen as well.
If too much information is lost in the genome the parameters for survival narrow.
In man made design many more components are used than necessary and this widens the parameters of functionality.

In the cell and within the genome of a species there is probably much more information than absolutely necessary but it facilitates flexibility in a widely diverse earth environment.

Whether brown bears or polar bears have lost information in the genome or gained it is the question. It is being shown that more is lost than gained in species reproduction. Is all the information in the genome flexible in its design and what part does God as an energizer of life in the cell change it so that actual life and survival can continue in a species.

The mind must play a role because the whole role of the complete organism is to sustain the cells within it. The animal kingdom is more connected to God in its entirety and individually. If the animal is stressed would the cell have empowered ability to meet the changed environment.

Man has separated from God in his own self empowerment and the mind then is diverted and the cell is not sustained adequately. Little by little man is being forced to operate outside design parameters, that is both physically and mentally in the emotions. The human mind is obsessed with conflict and war and this changes the ability to change to meet any challenge.

God plays a role in nature and every thing seen is made to appear and is energized by God both in the atom and the life of the cell.

 

[Sapiens]

John Sanford was an atheist evolutionist who became a theist and then Christian of what type is unknown. He is one of a team and of many others who are unable to explain evolution in view of their own work.

That is because of their willful stupidity.

There is work showing that some of the best "evidence" for evolution merely assumes it.

No there is not. There is game playing that makes that claim, but it's complete and utter BS.

Your comments make it seem as though intelligent people are brainless.

Not brainless, willfully stupid. It is a different affliction.

Experience shows that ability in practical application falls short when people target an individual rather than the problem.

Experience shows that willful stupidity in support of alraedy held religious beliefs is fairly common, even amongst the so called "intelligent." Remember when you call them intelligent that in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

The program was developed on a mainframe computer. Memory size does limit it. There are different parameters that are set with input data and the program could be made to come out wrong.
The input data is drawn from known tested parameters but it is variation the program is able to deal with.

The idea of the mouse is being misapplied because there is a paper on the evolutionary assumption it could turn into an elephant.

Mouse sized hyrax did just that.

An organism that has pressure on it from a changing environment could theoretically change to adapt, but it is more likely to degrade.
The idea a mouse can become an elephant is difficult when information is lost.

When a program repeatedly predicts something other than what is observed one should throw it away and fire the programers.

There are problems that are expressed as "never ending" in evolutionary biology.

So? But they all relate to interesting details, not the core of the TOE.

Well made equipment is in its design and the human mind with all its attribute or flaws tend to glory in their own achievements and then ignore the obvious.

Good discription of that FUBAR program you cited.