What Have Darwinists Said That's True?

[PureX]

What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?

A seahorse.

 

[camanintx]

A seahorse.

The question is the title of an article about Tiktaalik from a website run by the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education.

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

ChristineES :

Darwin was NOT an atheist. I know this is off-topic but I felt moved to write it)

Man I was harried/ pressed for time during my earlier response to this statement...In hindsight, I can’t believe I let you get away with it unchallenged ...

Leading up to , and following his 1859 authorship of ‘ The origin of species ( blah blah blah )’ Darwin’s writings all contain a decidedly atheistic slant. At no point , after 1859 ( to my knowledge ) did Darwin ever vacillate, from his position of staunch atheism ( as I earlier/erroneously contended ) . What he did was to vacillate / express grave reservations about his own theory ( in private letters to a colleague/ friend ) which is certainly NOT the same thing as vacillating on an atheistic position.

Darwin believed that spiritual beliefs were born out of an ignorance of natural causes/ natural science. His theory/ all of his writings have an inherently anti-supernaturalist/ anti-spiritual spin... if u will. ...Here’s an example :

The tendency in savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I once noticed: my dog, a full-grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had any one stood near it. As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that no stranger had a right to be on his territory. The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief in the existence of one or more gods. ( Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 3 )

Darwin is clearly equating belief in ' god or gods' with a primitive/ superstitious / unscientific mind...Such commentary is nothing if not atheistic.

Claims that Darwin was not an atheist, reminds me of those who try to deny the connections between Darwinism and Eugenics/ Nazism . ( See Richard Weikart’s ‘ FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY&#8217

Rudolph Hess wrote that :

National Socialism is nothing more than applied biology.

That Hitler’s policies on racial purity / eugenics/ exterminating ostensibly inferior races were heavily influenced by Darwin’s own racist/genocidal precepts can hardly be doubted. Darwin’s most famous book was subtitled ‘ the Preservation of the favored races in the struggle for life’ ( or something like that, too lazy to check...) . In a subsequent Thome Darwin had this to say:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. ( see Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 6. )

I think it's clear from many of Darwin’s depraved ramblings ....inclusive of those which predict that European whites will exterminate blacks.( as if genocide/ barbarity was somehow beneficial to civilized society ? ) that Darwin recognized NO ultimate morality/ ethics/ godly authority ...

If you can supply evidence to the contrary ChristineES....I’d be very interested in seeing it

****

In essense Darwin/ Darwinists are claiming that : ' MAN IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD' , so to speak/ the king of the evolutionary castle...Homo Sapiens have climbed to these dizzying evolutionary heights through their own efforts, no thanks to Deity....now Man ( i.e. the most powerful Men/ Elite Deviants ) is free to make up the rules of morality as he goes along.

ìMan is becoming god. Those who see in national socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it. It is more even than a religion. It is the will to create mankind anew. ( Adolf Hitler )

 

[PureX]

In essense Darwin/ Darwinists are claiming that : ' MAN IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD' , so to speak/ the king of the evolutionary castle...Homo Sapiens have climbed to these dizzying evolutionary heights through their own efforts, no thanks to Deity....now Man ( i.e. the most powerful Men/ Elite Deviants ) is free to make up the rules of morality as he goes along.

I don't know how much of this nonsense is Darwin's own, or has been attributed to him by others, later. But I do know this doesn't have much of anything to do with the theory of evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is an observation based on two simple concepts. The observation is the change of species over time, and the two concepts proposed as responsible for these changes are natural selection and mutation. None of this has anything to do with mankind's delusions of superiority, manifest destiny, or atheism. Nor does the extent to which Darwin dabbled in these.

 

[Random]

...Homo Sapiens have climbed to these dizzying evolutionary heights through their own efforts, no thanks to Deity....now Man ( i.e. the most powerful Men/ Elite Deviants ) is free to make up the rules of morality as he goes along.

Just so, but this is how the Elite, who are always deviants (usually agressive psychopathic control-freaks and sex fiends), have seen it right from the beginning.

Men who use the Sun and phallus symbolically to represent themselves, men who DO believe in the Manifest Destiny of the few only, men who use women as Breeding Stock for good genes (and have always done so, read Plato's Republic), men who have manufactured, built up and torn down more cultures and races than any other group in the history of humanity, these men are the ones who made a celebrity scientist of Darwin, who informed him of the origin of the ToE (in Vedic lore, reincarnation doctrine and Hindu philosophy). Evolution was closely guarded Masonic secret LONG before The Origin of the Species was published. It was the secret of sacred kingship, you see: of Royal Blood, oligarchical lineage, the "True Blues" who ruled by so-called Divine Right over the Profane (those in darkness, the ignorant Slave caste).

Thus, whilst evolution may be generally true in terms of Biology, its textbook history is a lie and many of the details of it are inaccurate.

As for making morality up as they go along, the powers and principalities that run this world, who are either Deists or virulent Atheists, have free reign to do so: everything is relative, and thus in the right context permissible. So they believe, and so it is.

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Storm :

I've read references to "other theories of evolution" indicating that Darwinian evolution actually has LEGITIMATE challengers. Does anyone know what these other theories might be? Does punctuated equilibrium qualify?

First : Are you implying that all challenges to Darwinism outside of the mainstream/conventional science orthodoxy/dogma are ILLEGITIMATE ?

Second ( and to answer your question ) : NO... punctuated equilibrium would NOT qualify...Lamarckian evolution ( which predates Darwinism ) WOULD qualify IMO ...Ditto some form of neo-Lamarckian evolution ( again IMO )


Midnight Blue :

Punctuated equilibrium is a view about the rate at which organisms evolve, but it doesn't conflict at all with natural selection.

Au contraire ..Darwinism demands gradualism...Punctuated Equilibrium ( which is really just dressing up Goldschmidt’s old ‘ hopeful Monster hypothesis’ in more scientific sounding nomenclature ) was a last ditch/limp wristed effort by evolutionary biologists Eldredge and Gould to try to salvage Darwinism ( IMO ) since they knew full well that the fossil record showed a startling dearth of intermediate forms


Camanintx :

Darwin's Theory of Evolution said that IF land vertebrates evolved from fish then there should be a transitional species displaying characteristics of both. And guess what, there is one.

We do not know if Tiktaalik was a ‘ transitional species’. Indeed we still do not know if a single transitional species exists, or has ever existed, prior to the existence/appearance of radical/novel fleshly design features. All phylum appeared suddenly as if over night ! ( see Cambrian Explosion )

Furthermore, We do not know if Darwinian evolution underpinned by blind/ purposeless/ random mutation is even possible ( find me a single mathematician who has produced a paper in support of Darwinian evolution ? All the scientific papers, produced by mathematicians I know of...are against it. They essentially assert that ' Darwinian Evolution is impossible !' )

We do not know how evolution happened. What if evolution has been ( and continues to be ) driven by a purposeful intelligence ? How else to explain the sudden appearance of each and every phylum ?



Camanintx:

Since only a fraction of all organisms that have ever existed get fossilized and we have found only a minute fraction of the fossils that may exist, the fact that we can even draw phylogenetic trees, whether they are beyond repute or not, IS ITSELF EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION.

I can draw an elf or a unicorn...doesn't prove they exist

No thinking man would ever dispute that the entire cosmos is, and has always been, in a state of flux IMO ...BUT Evolution ( the fact that things change , inclusive of living things...is NOT... in and of itself...evidence for Darwinism.

There is NOTHING in the fossil record to support a gradualistic/ Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis....All fleshly Evolution appears SUDDEN...Which lends credence to notions of an INTELLIGENT/ PURPOSEFUL EVOLUTION...

‘missing link’ ancestors remain mysteriously absent from the fossil record. In the words of eminent evolutionary biologist Niles Eldredge:

No wonder paleontologists shied away from ( Darwinian ) evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yield zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change-over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.

Darwin himself was well aware of this problem. If his theory were true the various layers of strata ought to be full of transitional forms

Why then ( lamented Darwin ) is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory

Caminintx :

IF ALL LIFE WAS CREATED IN IT'S EXISTING FORM ...

who said all life was created in its existing form ? I certainly don’t believe this...I believe in INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION over untold eons. There is NO REASON the Creator of both the cosmos and dna, cannot purposefully manipulate the latter ...remember the tadpole ? that dna changes radically, as does the dna of a Monarch butterfly during its days as a pupa. So is this change , this evolution... blind/ Darwinian? Seems preprogramed/ creative / purposeful to me.

Caminintx :

how can there be so much convergence in the fossils we have found?

Intelligent/purposeful evolution would be my answer ( again see Informational fields/ morphic fields/ Rupert Sheldrake )

Caminintx:

...Can Creationism explain why creatures as diverse as whales and cows share so many similarities?

Do we need blind/ UN-intelligent evolution to explain why cars of different manufacturer / model / decade ...still tend to share so many design features ? To reiterate : There is NO reason that the Creator of Dna couldn’t be continuously reshaping it, according to some longterm plan. Let’s recall that it was single celled microbes which actually served to engender the oxygen rich atmosphere which higher life forms would need. That sounds like LONGTERM PLANNING to me ! Indeed the entire cosmos seemed rather benificently organized from the advent of the BIG BANG in order to give rise to intelligent carbon based lifeforms such as ourselves ( see the Strong Anthropic Principle ) ....more longterm planning ?

I would argue that the sheer efficiency of DNA , not to mention the sheer interdependency of myriads of species vis a vis complex ecosystems etc, coupled with the sheer rapidity of the appearance of radically novel fleshly designs... ( see 'the Cambrain Explosion' etc ) critically weakens Darwinist arguments that evolution has been blind/ underpinned by random mutations.

A blind evolution shouldn’t ( neigh COULDN"T IMO ) be so-oooo efficient and so-ooo rapid . A la my motorcar example, fleshly EVOLUTION has all the signs of having been driven by a SUPERNATURAL INTELLIGENCE over untold eons.

Yossarian :

What the hell have they ( Darwinists ) said that is true? Who the hell knows?

They have offered A METRIC TON OF ACCURATE PREDICTIONS based off their model. That's a helluvalot more than creationism or intelligent design has ever done.

Hmm kinda a weak kneed ' my dog is bigger than your dog ' type response IMO...' full of bluster but signifying NOTHING.' ....BTW and for the record ...MY DOG'S BIGGER !

While you offer sweet didly/ziltch imo....In that parallel thread I provided quotes from a variety of renown mathematicians insisting that blind/ Darwinian evolution was nonsense/ impossible statistically speaking ( see mathematical challenges to Darwinism presented at the Wistar Institute symposium 1966 ) .

I also cited rational/ puissant arguments in support of ID pertaining to ‘ informational entropy/ information theory and more...Likewise citing the obvious fact that DNA IS A CODE, and that all other codes ( real or imagined ) denote and/or are known to be the products of intelligent minds.... Could u ( oh enlightened one ) kindly provide even ONE example from this Metric Ton of accurate predictions ? I won’t hold my breath

Sunstone :

The OP can't be serious, can it?

Well once again turnabout is fair play...

...So, ummm, what have ( Darwinists ) said that's true?

CHEERS ET AL !

 

[camanintx]

‘missing link’ ancestors remain mysteriously absent from the fossil record.

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

So why do all phylum appear suddenly, with no signs of pre-existing transitional species ?

When it comes to phylum....THERE ARE ZERO / ZILTCH/ NADA CONNECTING DOTS !!!

doesn't make a pretty picture for Darwinists now does it ?

 

[camanintx]

So why do all phylum appear suddenly, with no signs of pre-existing transitional species ?

What you call "suddenly" was spread over a period of 40 million years. Looking back 40 million years humans didn't even exist. Since most ecological niches were empty back then, it's not hard to imagine such diversity over that long a span.

When it comes to phylum....THERE ARE ZERO / ZILTCH/ NADA CONNECTING DOTS !!!

How many receipts do you have from ten years ago? Does that mean you didn't spend any money back then? This is an example of preservation bias. Since early life forms were less likely to fossilize, there is going to be a point where fossils become harder to find. That doesn't mean the dots don't exist, they're just spread a little farther apart.

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Midnight Blue :

He ( Darwin ) was an agnostic.

Really ? Kindly, Show me some evidence to support this conclusion. I say you're talking through your hat/ spouting Nonsense !

The tendency in savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I once noticed: my dog, a full-grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had any one stood near it. As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that no stranger had a right to be on his territory. THE BELIEF IN SPIRITUAL AGENCIES WOULD EASILY PASS INTO THE BELIEF IN THE EXISTENCE OF ONE OR MORE GODS. ( Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 3 )

Darwin is essentially implying here that all causes have rational/ naturalistic/ materialist explanations ( known or unknown). That NOTHING is the net result/ product of spiritual/ supernatural agencies . That only the ignorant/ unscientific believe otherwise... leading to an ' irrational ‘ belief in the existence of one or more God(s).’ Clearly, Darwin is professing a NON- belief in any god or gods...This is a decidedly Atheistic position to take...NOT an agnostic one

In addition, Darwin pretty much came out in support of genocide/ the complete erradication of all ' inferior races' .... Indeed he viewed this as all but inevitable

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. ( see Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 6. )

Calling genocide all but inevitable...This is NOT the position of a fence sitting agnostic , hedging his bets...This is the position of a staunch atheist who recognized no penultimate/ universal morality/ lawmaker/ judge ...and no authority whatsoever greater than man ...To Darwin , Man was free to make up the rules as he went along...in a pitiless/ purposeless cosmos that cared not one iota for Homo Sapiens....Darwin who denied both the spiritual and the supernatural...did NOT believe in otherwordly consequences vis a vis human behavior...Again this is NOT an ' AGNOSTIC ' position ( which leaves room for doubt ) this is an atheistic position...no penultimate/ universal morality/ justice....ergo no final authority/ no penultimate consequences etc...

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Crystalonyx :

Evolution is just as "hard" a science as physics or chenistry, with as much evidence backing its theories as the aforementioned. To place evolution in some kind of scientific limbo is absurd

Evolution/ the dynamic/ ever changing nature of the entire cosmos IS on solid ( neigh irrefutable ) ground....BUT ...Darwinism/ Darwinian evolution is as full of holes as Swiss Cheese + it stinks to high heaven !

 

[ChristineES]

I think people sound desperate to prove that Darwin was an atheist, but he was not (at least from I have learned). I heard he was an agnostic, too. That means that he did not know if there were a God or gods or not.
I certainly could be wrong about it, since Darwin is no longer alive to ask for certain.

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Christine :

I think people sound desperate to prove that Darwin was an atheist.

I’m not desperate to prove anything ! I backed up my assertions about Darwin’s atheism with quotes from Darwin himself, which I contend lend credence to what I’m saying...If anyone seems desperate to prove anything, based on NO EVIDENCE that would be you...

Christine

...he ( Darwin ) was not ( an atheist ) ....at least from I have learned.

Oh well I suppose ( tongue firmly in cheek/sarcasm alert ) that cinches it then

ChristineES:

I heard he was an agnostic, too. That means that he did not know if there were a God or gods or not.

Thanks for that cumbersome definition of ' agnostic'. But I already have a handle on what it means BTW An atheist does not know if God or gods exist either. The Atheist is merely convinced that he/she/they do not. By his own words, that definition of Atheism fits Darwin to a 'T' IMO.

Christine :

I certainly could be wrong about it, since Darwin is no longer alive to ask for certain.

Tut Tut....Why not cite Darwin’s volumous/massive written/ recorded thoughts to support your position. Otherwise, kindly stop insisting ( without a smattering of evidence ) that : ‘ Darwin was NOT an atheist ‘

Your bluff ( and it is a bluff ) has been called...' Pay up or ---- -- ! '

PEACE OUT

 

[camanintx]

I think people sound desperate to prove that Darwin was an atheist, but he was not (at least from I have learned). I heard he was an agnostic, too. That means that he did not know if there were a God or gods or not.
I certainly could be wrong about it, since Darwin is no longer alive to ask for certain.

Soon it might be easier than you think. Check out the following new web site.

Darwin Correspondence Project - Darwin & religion

 

[logician]

Crystalonyx :

Evolution/ the dynamic/ ever changing nature of the entire cosmos IS on solid ( neigh irrefutable ) ground....BUT ...Darwinism/ Darwinian evolution is as full of holes as Swiss Cheese + it stinks to high heaven !

Darwin was the greatest scientist that ever lived, there's no need for this wrongful denigratrion.

 

[yossarian22]

Yossarian :

Hmm kinda a weak kneed ' my dog is bigger than your dog ' type response IMO...' full of bluster but signifying NOTHING.' ....BTW and for the record ...MY DOG'S BIGGER !
While you offer sweet didly/ziltch imo....In that parallel thread I provided quotes from a variety of renown mathematicians insisting that blind/ Darwinian evolution was nonsense/ impossible statistically speaking ( see mathematical challenges to Darwinism presented at the Wistar Institute symposium 1966 ) .

:biglaugh:
I dismembered those a long time ago.
Speak not of that which you do not comprehend.
Just a thought.
I am more than willing to rend your arguments from end to end, since it is very similar to a professor's "Find everything wrong with this argument" style of tests
Given that I expect to see more than a few dozen examples to be posted in this thread, I will respond with DDT mosquito predictions. There will doubtless be more

Meanwhile I will wait for a single prediction to come from ID.
Odds are about as good as me coughing up the hope diamond.

 

[Smoke]

Midnight Blue :

Au contraire ..Darwinism demands gradualism...

I understand that. You have demonstrated very clearly, though, that you don't understand either Darwin or punctuated equilibrium.

Midnight Blue :

Really ? Kindly, Show me some evidence to support this conclusion. I say you're talking through your hat/ spouting Nonsense !

That's okay. One of the things that makes my life so pleasant is that I never trouble myself about the opinions of the willfully ignorant.

Calling genocide all but inevitable...This is NOT the position of a fence sitting agnostic , hedging his bets...This is the position of a staunch atheist who recognized no penultimate/ universal morality/ lawmaker/ judge ...and no authority whatsoever greater than man ...

One may doubt whether genocide was inevitable, but there is no doubt that the Abrahamic god not only justifies it, but demands it, and that his followers have often been its enthusiastic proponents.

 

[Smoke]

I think people sound desperate to prove that Darwin was an atheist, but he was not (at least from I have learned). I heard he was an agnostic, too. That means that he did not know if there were a God or gods or not.
I certainly could be wrong about it, since Darwin is no longer alive to ask for certain.

No, you're not wrong. When he was alive, he said very plainly that he was an agnostic and was not and never had been an atheist. However, some people will believe whatever they please regardless of what the facts are; people who make it their business to attack Darwin are always that kind of people.

 

[camanintx]

Furthermore, We do not know if Darwinian evolution underpinned by blind/ purposeless/ random mutation is even possible ( find me a single mathematician who has produced a paper in support of Darwinian evolution ? All the scientific papers, produced by mathematicians I know of...are against it. They essentially assert that ' Darwinian Evolution is impossible !' )

Maybe that is because Evolution is a biological science and mathematicians are not biologists. I would be far more impressed if you could produce a scientific paper by a biologist asserting that 'Darwinian Evolution is impossible!'

 

[ChristineES]

No, you're not wrong. When he was alive, he said very plainly that he was an agnostic and was not and never had been an atheist. However, some people will believe whatever they please regardless of what the facts are; people who make it their business to attack Darwin are always that kind of people.

Thank you, Bill.