The Darwin Delusion

[Riverwolf]

Again, I know what the story of evolution says and also why it's wrong. The weak and the strong co-exist in every species and both eventually die. Weak members can also breed fit and healthy offspring and strong members can also bread unfit and unhealthy offspring. So the the "survival of the" fittest is a myth. So try again.

Yet again, prove it.

You know... I have to give eselam credit. At least he backs up his arguments.

At least I can give you SOME credit for reading the thread when I believed you wouldn't. ^_^ There's hope for you, yet.

 

[Carico]

Yet again, prove it.

You know... I have to give eselam credit. At least he backs up his arguments.

At least I can give you SOME credit for reading the thread when I believed you wouldn't. ^_^ There's hope for you, yet.

All you have to do is do your research on people considered "unfit" and look at their offspring. Einstein had a son who was mentally retarded. Even dwarfs have children with normal heights.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Again, I know what the story of evolution says and also why it's wrong. The weak and the strong co-exist in every species. Weak members can also breed fit and healthy offspring and strong members can also bread unfit and unhealthy offspring. And the fit and the weak both eventually die. So the "survival of the" fittest is a myth. You just blindly accept whatever is written in a science book without thinking it through. So try again.

Okay. You don't get it. And you're a hipocrite too. That is one of the most annoying things someone can be in my opinion. I'm going to stop trying to talk to you. I totally called this near the beginning of the thread. I knew it would be worthless to try to have a discussion with you.

 

[Carico]

Okay. You don't get it. And you're a hipocrite too. That is one of the most annoying things someone can be in my opinion. I'm going to stop trying to talk to you. I totally called this near the beginning of the thread. I knew it would be worthless to try to have a discussion with you.

I think that would be wise since your story of evolution is as imaginary as claiming that dogs once ruled the world.

 

[Riverwolf]

All you have to do is do your research on people considered "unfit" and look at their offspring. Einstein had a son who was mentally retarded. Even dwarfs have children with normal heights.

So?

The genes in the dwarfs' children that were responsible for their parents' dwarfism didn't turn on. Simple as that.

Mental abilities aren't always hereditary.

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh, then please tell us the real history of the Jews. I'm sure your story will be at least as entertaining as the story of evolution is.

What does the history of the jews, or any other race, nation, whatever have to do with any god?

 

[darkendless]

I think putting too much faith in Darwin himself is dangerous. Darwin was a pioneer, not the be all and end all of evolution. Its like relying on Ernst Rutherford for the theory of the atom, whilst superior for its time and true, to an extent, it was a simplified model of the atom. This relates to Darwins evolution because sooooo much work has been done since the days of Darwin reinforcing and strengthening the position of evolution, that is is intellectually dishonest to focus only on his work as if it were the "law" of evolution.

 

[Jesus Smasher]

his delusion is to the severity that there is no pulling him out of it, hes already stated (in so many words) that he UNDERSTANDS everything and its all wrong, so even if you were to directly point out a flaw in logic or argument he'd immediately respond that you are wrong.. there's no winning because there is no argument. Think of it as trying to convince someone that has an invisible friend that they have no invisible friend, the only thing that can rattle someones brain hard enough to re-track it either into a worse pattern or completely out of it is a nice dosage of hallucinogens.

 

[camanintx]

All you have to do is do your research on people considered "unfit" and look at their offspring. Einstein had a son who was mentally retarded. Even dwarfs have children with normal heights.

Did it ever occur to you that nature may have a different idea of what is considered "fit"?

BTW - Einstein's son, Eduard, was afflicted with schizophrenia and was not mentally retarded. And since he never fathered any children, this is actually a good example of how evolution through natural selection works.

 

[Carico]

Did it ever occur to you that nature may have a different idea of what is considered "fit"?

BTW - Einstein's son, Eduard, was afflicted with schizophrenia and was not mentally retarded. And since he never fathered any children, this is actually a good example of how evolution through natural selection works.

And I bet you think that accidental pregnancies is natural selection too even though that's an oxymoron.

Of course not, because nature can't think. Only humans can. Hitler had an idea of "fit" which is why he tried to kill of the "weak." In fact, he justified his idealogy through social Darwinism. But that's what happens when one tries to define "fit." He begins to play God and determines who lives or dies. And when his beliefs are based on false assumptions like natural selection instead of basic reproduction, that's when he becomes as delusional as Hitler was.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Everyone is ignorant of it since not even Darwin could describe his main characters. So no one else knows who they are either which of course means that no one can know what they were capable of breeding either. Darwin simply left his story up to the imaginations of his readers.

Yet you offer no other explanation in place of evolution....

The simple fact that Evolution as a theory has moved beyond Darwin, quite a while ago... is neither here nor there when it comes to simplistic ideas such as the ones expressed in this post.

Evolution at its core is essentially just change. You can deny thigns change all you like....:sarcastic:foot:

 

[Mr Cheese]

And I bet you think that accidental pregnancies is natural selection too even though that's an oxymoron.

Of course not, because nature can't think. Only humans can. Hitler had an idea of "fit" which is why he tried to kill of the "weak." In fact, he justified his idealogy through social Darwinism. But that's what happens when one tries to define "fit." He begins to play God and determines who lives or dies. And when his beliefs are based on false assumptions like natural selection instead of basic reproduction, that's when he becomes as delusional as Hitler was.

Adolf Hitler was an insane mad man, or maybe you consider a personage that oversaw Genocide as sane?

Citing the Nazi pseudo science of Eugenics, [which including stating white people are superior as black people's skulls (his samples) had "bumps" on them....] is frankly rather silly, to be polite.

If you distrust Darwinism, or lets be accurate Evolution, then why not suggest an alternative, one that does not include: "Read the book of Genesis"

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I suggest reading Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Most of his inferences on natural selection were well-founded based on his observations.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I think putting too much faith in Darwin himself is dangerous. Darwin was a pioneer, not the be all and end all of evolution. Its like relying on Ernst Rutherford for the theory of the atom, whilst superior for its time and true, to an extent, it was a simplified model of the atom. This relates to Darwins evolution because sooooo much work has been done since the days of Darwin reinforcing and strengthening the position of evolution, that is is intellectually dishonest to focus only on his work as if it were the "law" of evolution.

EXACTLY fruballs to you!

Those who are ignorant think that Evolution theory= darwinism

Please save us from the deliberatly ignorant :shout

 

[camanintx]

And I bet you think that accidental pregnancies is natural selection too even though that's an oxymoron.

If one is able to get pregnant (or get someone else pregnant), accidentally or not, that is generally enough to be considered "fit".

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm calling troll. I think a former troll is back under a different name.

 

[Magic Man]

What I don't get is why people like Carico think that in cultures that are and have been, by a huge majority, Christian would want to prove it wrong? I get that it's a conspiracy theory and so there is probably no rationality to it, but I just don't understand why they think that, when 90% of a population believes something, and you're seen as bad or an outcast for not believing it, anyone would actively want to publicly not believe it and find reasons not to.

 

[Sunstone]

Hitler had an idea of "fit" which is why he tried to kill of the "weak." In fact, he justified his idealogy through social Darwinism.

Eugenics is a bit different than social Darwinism. Hitler was into Eugenics, not social Darwinism. Eugenics is basically a notion that you can improve people by breeding them like you would breed horses. It's been around in one form or another since before Darwin. Evolution, properly understood, is opposed to Eugenics. Which might explain why Hitler burned Darwin's books.

 

[Carico]

If one is able to get pregnant (or get someone else pregnant), accidentally or not, that is generally enough to be considered "fit".

Sorry but humans only "naturally" select other humans, not a different species with whom to breed.

And so do other animals. A tiger doesn't "naturally" select a giraffe as a mate. He only selects tigers as mates unless man interferes and tries to mate him with a different animal. So sorry, but animals and humans were programmed to breed their own species and with their own species (thus the term reproduction) which is why humans can't breed lions, tigers, or bears as descendants any more than apes can breed, lions, tigers, bears, or humans as descendants either. So the story of evolution isn't only based on imaginary characters, it's based on false assumptions as well.

 

[Sunstone]

Sorry but humans only "naturally" select other humans, not a different species with whom to breed.

And so do other animals. A tiger doesn't "naturally" select a giraffe as a mate. He only selects tigers as mates unless man interferes and tries to mate him with a different animal. So sorry, but animals and humans were programmed to breed their own species and with their own species (thus the term reproduction) which is why humans can't breed lions, tigers, or bears as descendants any more than apes can breed, lions, tigers, bears, or humans as descendants either. So the story of evolution isn't only based on imaginary characters, it's based on false assumptions as well.

Your understanding of evolution suites a fundamentalist more than a scientist.