Blog Against Theocracy #1

Religions > Atheism > Blog Against Theocracy #1

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	31 Mar 2007 09:10:18 AM
Object:	Blog Against Theocracy #1

Blog Against Theocracy
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/3/29/1617/10155
By Frederick Clarkson
03/29/2007 01:06:17 AM EST
"There is nothing," wrote Victor Hugo, "more powerful than and idea
whose time has come." And as we have seen, bloggers can generate ideas
and activities to back them that are powerful indeed. This morning,
Blue Gal, a blogger from 'Bama announced an idea that I think is
powerful indeed. She proposed organizing a blogswarm against theocracy
on Easter weekend April 6-8, 2007.
As someone who has been writing about theocratic politics for many
years, I can say that no one has ever done anything remotely like this
and that I think its long overdue for the blogopshere to flex its
muscles more knowledgeably, articulately and collectively in response
to the theocratic politics of our time.
Blue Gal proposes to draw on the themes and resources of First Freedom
First, a joint project sponsored by Americans United for Separation of
Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance, and is endorsed by a
number of other religious, humanist and atheist organizations.
That sounds good to me.
But she is quick to point out that this is an effort entirely
independent of these fine organzations, and is strictly a blogger
initiative. That said, Blue Gal writes:
The post will be against theocracy, in favor of our Constitutional
guarantee of separation of church and state. But there are a LOT of
issues tied to this, as is pointed out in the First Freedom First website:
No religious discrimination.
PRO End-of-Life Care (no more Terri Schiavo travesties)
Reproductive health decisions made by individuals, not
religious "majorities"
Democracy not Theocracy
Academic Integrity (like, a rock is as old as it is, not as
old as the Bible says)
Sound Science (good bye so-called "intelligent" design)
Respect for ALL families (based on love, not sexual
orientation. Hellooooo.)
And finally, The right to worship, OR NOT.
So take your pick and write your post(s). Really, the wider
variety of topics makes it all the more interesting. I can't wait to
read what Pharyngula has to say about sound science, or what some of
you will have to say about reproductive choice as it relates to
church/state separation, or how a religionist blogger feels about
their own freedom to worship and how that is compromised by state
sponsored religion. (That's my topic, fwiw.)
Blue Gal continues:
I really hope this blogswarm does more than just let the world
know how we feel about the separation of Church and State. I hope it
improves and awakens how we feel about each other. I may be a
"believer" whatever the hell that means, but I can't have too many
smart, funny, and fascinating, atheists, scientists, agnostics, GLBT
bloggers, etc. etc. around here. Who the ***** did JESUS hang out with,
anyway? I don't think if he were here today, Jesus would have a beer
with some hypocritical preacherman, even if the preacherman was
buying. MY God is Love, and Mind, and Truth. And this blogswarm is all
about those. Thanks for participating.
I like the way Blue Gal thinks about these things -- and I think she
has hit on an approach we can all get behind.
I first heard about it from my friend and Talk to Action colleague,
Mainstream Baptist (aka Rev. Dr. Bruce Prescott) who wrote:
Some might find it surprising for a Baptist minister to encourage
a blogswarm against theocracy on Easter weekend, but I think it is a
valid expression of an authentic faith.
For Jesus the Kingdom of God is "not of this world." Theocrats are
distorting the teachings of Jesus to promote their own fantasies for a
temporal utopia.
I intend to write a blog against theocracy on Easter Sunday. What
better day than Resurrection Sunday than to hope and pray that the
spirit of democracy will revive in the evangelical churches of America.
Well how about that America! A prominent Baptist will blog about the
dangers of theocracy on Easter Sunday.
I don't know about you, but I love it.
Here is the official campaign web site: Blog Against Theocracy.
http://blogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com/
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	02 Apr 2007 09:07:34 PM

On Mar 31, 10:10 am,

wrote:

Blog Against Theocracy
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/3/29/1617/10155

By Frederick Clarkson
03/29/2007 01:06:17 AM EST

[snips]

PRO End-of-Life Care (no more Terri Schiavo travesties)

If you were in 1938 Nazi Germany, would you have opposed or supported
the killing of Baby Knauer?
From
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing
some human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
That case came to their
attention in late 1938. A baby had been born with birth
defects: Baby Knauer was blind and had a leg and part of
an arm missing. The parents were distraught and,
accepting the general value system of their time, were
deeply ashamed to have brought a useless eater into the
world. They wrote requesting permission to have their
child "put to sleep." Hitler was quite interested in the
case and sent one of his personal physicians, Karl
Rudolph Brandt, to investigate. Brandt's instructions
from the Fuhrer were to verify the facts of the baby's
condition and, if true, to assure the child's doctors and
her parents that if she was killed, no one would face
punishment or liability. Brandt was then to witness the
euthanasia and report back to Hitler. The doctors in the
case who met with Brandt agreed that there was "no
justification for keeping the child alive," and Baby
Knauer soon became one of the first victims of the
Holocaust.^27
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Terri Schindler Schiavo story with villains, victims, and heroes
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115741978.820440.50060%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
not-PVS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1115683914.394927.244340%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
2005 _Silent Witness: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo's Death_
by Mark Fuhrman
http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Witness-Untold-Story-Schiavos/dp/0060853379
2006 _Fighting for Dear Life: The Untold Story of Terri Schiavo and
What It Means for All of Us_
by David C. Gibbs and Bob DeMoss
http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Dear-Life-Untold-Schiavo/dp/076420243X
2005 _Terri's Story: The Court-Ordered Death of an American Woman_
by Diana Lynne
http://www.amazon.com/Terris-Story-Court-Ordered-Death-American/dp/1581824882
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian, atheistic a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.

User: "Martin"
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	03 Apr 2007 02:38:22 AM

wrote:

On Mar 31, 10:10 am,

wrote:

Blog Against Theocracy
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/3/29/1617/10155

By Frederick Clarkson
03/29/2007 01:06:17 AM EST

[snips]

PRO End-of-Life Care (no more Terri Schiavo travesties)

If you were in 1938 Nazi Germany, would you have opposed or supported
the killing of Baby Knauer?

<snip>
That's the second time you've posted exactly the same post.
Are you sitting there having a 5 fingered hand shuffle thinking of
killing babies and how 'bad' it is?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	03 Apr 2007 09:00:07 AM

On Apr 3, 3:38 am, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Mar 31, 10:10 am,

wrote:

Blog Against Theocracy
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/3/29/1617/10155

By Frederick Clarkson
03/29/2007 01:06:17 AM EST

[snips]

PRO End-of-Life Care (no more Terri Schiavo travesties)

If you were in 1938 Nazi Germany, would you have opposed or supported
the killing of Baby Knauer?

<snip>

That's the second time you've posted exactly the same post.

Are you sitting there having a 5 fingered hand shuffle thinking of
killing babies and how 'bad' it is?

What is "a 5 fingered hand shuffle"?
Do you disagree with any of these views of the atheism-adherents
Watson and Crick?:
From
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize
laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA,
granted an interview to _Prism_ magazine, then a
publication of the American Medical Association.
_Time_ later reported the interview to the general
public, quoting Watson as having said,
If a child were not declared alive until three days
after birth, then all parents could be allowed the
choice only a few are given under the present
system. The doctor could allow the child to die
if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery
and suffering. I believe this view is the only
rational, compassionate attitude to have.
In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel
laureate, was quoted in the _Pacific News Service_
as saying,
. . . no newborn infant should be declared human
until it has passed certain tests regarding its
genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests
it forfeits the right to live.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	03 Apr 2007 10:06:09 AM

wrote:

Do you disagree with any of these views of the atheism-adherents
Watson and Crick?:

Their opinions on social matters offer no more insight than your
opinions on molecular structure.
There are people with odd political-moral ideas in every field. Their
renown in their field of expertise does not make their ideal of
politics or morality any more correct or more interesting, whether
they are name James Watson or Ronald Reagan.
BTW, Watson is an atheist; however, Crick described himself as
agnostic.
lojbab
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	05 Apr 2007 11:27:18 AM

In article <mjq413dn3pk2b8nair2g86vpb1rjpvv6bm@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:

dford3@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

Do you disagree with any of these views of the atheism-adherents
Watson and Crick?:

Their opinions on social matters offer no more insight than your
opinions on molecular structure.

There are people with odd political-moral ideas in every field. Their
renown in their field of expertise does not make their ideal of
politics or morality any more correct or more interesting, whether
they are name James Watson or Ronald Reagan.

BTW, Watson is an atheist; however, Crick described himself as
agnostic.

lojbab

Hey, Bob, if you think our very own Tommy Topaz is obsessed with
Hitler, just wait til you tilt with `dford' a bit.
You will also find that his responses make JDay's replies look linear...
-- cary
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	05 Apr 2007 02:04:38 PM

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

Hey, Bob, if you think our very own Tommy Topaz is obsessed with
Hitler, just wait til you tilt with `dford' a bit.

You will also find that his responses make JDay's replies look linear...

His quote mining is pretty silly, that is for sure. He has Ken
Clifton's general knowledge and reading comprehension, to be citing
Ben Franklin to reinforce a Reagan quote about sexual morality.
lojbab
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	05 Apr 2007 08:18:39 PM

On Apr 5, 3:04 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

Hey, Bob, if you think our very own Tommy Topaz is obsessed with
Hitler, just wait til you tilt with `dford' a bit.

You will also find that his responses make JDay's replies look linear...

His quote mining is pretty silly, that is for sure.

Is there "quote mining" here?:
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
history of the rise & fall of the Synthetic Euphoria
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156259059.973810.299560%40p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

He has Ken
Clifton's general knowledge and reading comprehension, to be citing
Ben Franklin to reinforce a Reagan quote about sexual morality.

Do you agree with this Nordau?:
Nordau, Max. 1922. _Morals and the Evolution of Man_, a translation
by Marie A. Lewenz (Fellow of University College, London) of Nordau's
1916 _Biologie der Ethik_ (London: Cassell & Company, Limited, NY:
Funk and Wagnalls Company), 278pp. On 73:
But Good and Bad derive not only their existence but their
measure and their significance from the views of the
community. They are therefore not absolute but variable;
they are not an immutable standard amid the ever-changing
conditions of humanity, a rule by which the value of the
actions and aims of mortals are indisputably determined, but
are subject to the laws of evolution in society and therefore
in a constant state of flux. At different times and in different
places they present the most varied aspects. What is virtue
here and now may have been vice formerly and at another
spot, and _vice versa_.
Nordau then mentions marriage between sisters and brothers in ancient
Egypt, sacrifice of children to the Babylonian and Cannanite god
Moloch, Spartans teaching their sons to steal without getting caught,
Cherusci butchery of Roman prisoners to tribal gods, and Aztec human
sacrifice to Aztec gods.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Is infanticide "evil"?; Reagan; Nordau
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1131387293.922571.147570%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Benjamin Franklin: "be virtuous...to be happy"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=1169568588.272332.249470%40a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	05 Apr 2007 10:08:24 PM

wrote:

On Apr 5, 3:04 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

Hey, Bob, if you think our very own Tommy Topaz is obsessed with
Hitler, just wait til you tilt with `dford' a bit.

You will also find that his responses make JDay's replies look linear...

His quote mining is pretty silly, that is for sure.

Is there "quote mining" here?:

Yes.

_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').

Not only quote mining, but lying paraphrasis.

He has Ken
Clifton's general knowledge and reading comprehension, to be citing
Ben Franklin to reinforce a Reagan quote about sexual morality.

Do you agree with this Nordau?:

Nordau, Max. 1922.

Quote mining from an 85 year old book, and from a translation,
nonetheless.

_Morals and the Evolution of Man_, a translation
by Marie A. Lewenz (Fellow of University College, London) of Nordau's
1916 _Biologie der Ethik_ (London: Cassell & Company, Limited, NY:
Funk and Wagnalls Company), 278pp. On 73:
But Good and Bad derive not only their existence but their
measure and their significance from the views of the
community.

Yes. Especially since "Good" and "Bad" are human words with human
meanings.

They are therefore not absolute but variable;

Yes. That is the nature of language, as well as of reality. What is
good for me might be bad for you.

they are not an immutable standard

They aren't even a standard, much less an immutable one. They are
things that can be measured by standards, but there is no universal
standard.

amid the ever-changing
conditions of humanity, a rule by which the value of the
actions and aims of mortals are indisputably determined,

Yawn

But are subject to the laws of evolution in society

There are no "laws of evolution in society".

and therefore
in a constant state of flux. At different times and in different
places they present the most varied aspects. What is virtue
here and now may have been vice formerly and at another
spot, and _vice versa_.

Yep.

Nordau then mentions marriage between sisters and brothers in ancient
Egypt,

Yep. The Pharoahs practiced incest, because they could not marry
outside of their rank and there was no one but their family of the
proper rank.

sacrifice of children to the Babylonian and Cannanite god Moloch,

There have been societies that practiced human sacrifice. Whether the
Babylonians actually did so, and even whether their was such a god,
are disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch
But if they did so, then in their society, they probably thought it
was "%$^k5" (whatever the Babylonian word might be that we would
translated as "good".

Spartans teaching their sons to steal without getting caught,
Cherusci butchery of Roman prisoners to tribal gods, and Aztec human
sacrifice to Aztec gods.

Your point?
People did things that they thought were good, but that we think are
bad. Sounds like you are trying to provide examples of what Nordau
said.
lojbab
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	06 Apr 2007 11:09:37 AM

In article <ohdb13dvgp88nq2bk7gfu3iu46q77j6co2@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:

59330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 105
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:08:24 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.192.234.183
X-Complaints-To:

X-Trace: newsfe16.lga 1175828928 72.192.234.183 (Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:08:48 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:08:48 MST
Organization: Cox
Xref: news.arizona.edu talk.politics.misc:926829 alt.politics.usa.constitution:61660 alt.education:82512 alt.atheism:1351646 alt.religion.christian:437661

dford3@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 5, 3:04 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

Hey, Bob, if you think our very own Tommy Topaz is obsessed with
Hitler, just wait til you tilt with `dford' a bit.

You will also find that his responses make JDay's replies look linear...

His quote mining is pretty silly, that is for sure.

Is there "quote mining" here?:

Yes.

Not only quote mining, but lying paraphrasis.

He has Ken
Clifton's general knowledge and reading comprehension, to be citing
Ben Franklin to reinforce a Reagan quote about sexual morality.

Do you agree with this Nordau?:

Nordau, Max. 1922.

Quote mining from an 85 year old book, and from a translation,
nonetheless.

Yes. Especially since "Good" and "Bad" are human words with human
meanings.

They are therefore not absolute but variable;

Yes. That is the nature of language, as well as of reality. What is
good for me might be bad for you.

they are not an immutable standard

They aren't even a standard, much less an immutable one. They are
things that can be measured by standards, but there is no universal
standard.

amid the ever-changing
conditions of humanity, a rule by which the value of the
actions and aims of mortals are indisputably determined,

Yawn

But are subject to the laws of evolution in society

There are no "laws of evolution in society".

Yep.

Nordau then mentions marriage between sisters and brothers in ancient
Egypt,

Yep. The Pharoahs practiced incest, because they could not marry
outside of their rank and there was no one but their family of the
proper rank.

sacrifice of children to the Babylonian and Cannanite god Moloch,

There have been societies that practiced human sacrifice. Whether the
Babylonians actually did so, and even whether their was such a god,
are disputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

But if they did so, then in their society, they probably thought it
was "%$^k5" (whatever the Babylonian word might be that we would
translated as "good".

Spartans teaching their sons to steal without getting caught,
Cherusci butchery of Roman prisoners to tribal gods, and Aztec human
sacrifice to Aztec gods.

Your point?

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention one other thing: besides dford's
obsession with Hitler, he's also hung up on evolution. He
keeps trying to forge associations between Darwin and Hitler.
All I can guess is that he wishes to rehabilitate Hitler's
reputation a bit, by somehow associating him with someone
so widely admired and respected.
-- cary
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	06 Apr 2007 07:23:20 PM

On Apr 6, 12:09 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention one other thing: besides dford's
obsession with Hitler, he's also hung up on evolution. He
keeps trying to forge associations between Darwin and Hitler.

Maser: "Darwin, one of Hitler's 'teachers'"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143173595.248723.143420%40t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

All I can guess is that he wishes to rehabilitate Hitler's
reputation a bit, by somehow associating him with someone
so widely admired and respected.

Darwinist Bolsche; Nazi Darwinist Johann S.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1143660228.632158.182410%40t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Claim: Haeckel joined the Thule Society.
Reality: that claim is unsubstantiated:
control - f/ "find" for: the search
http://www.waldorfcritics.com/active/archives/WCA0102.2.html
control - f/ "find" for: apologies
http://www.xn--enzyklopdie-s8a.de/Ernst_Haeckel.html
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10ac5d963dfa0eba?hl=en&
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	05 Apr 2007 08:10:50 PM

On Apr 5, 12:27 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <mjq413dn3pk2b8nair2g86vpb1rjpvv...@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> writes:
Hey, Bob, if you think our very own Tommy Topaz is obsessed with
Hitler, just wait til you tilt with `dford' a bit.

You will also find that his responses make JDay's replies look linear...

"linear"
Lima-de-Faria, A. 1988. _Evolution without Selection: Form and
Function by Autoevolution_ (NY: Elsevier), 349+pp. Lima-de-Faria is
with the Institute of Molecular Cytogenetics, University of Lund,
Sweden, and also wrote _Molecular Evolution and Organization of the
Chromosome_ (NY: Elsevier, 1983). Two sections on 9-10:
_Selection has been ascribed the most conflicting properties_
Selection can be both 'stabilizing' and 'disruptive', can be both
'directional' and 'accidental', it can 'canalize' and it can
'diversify'. As neo-Darwinism developed in the thirties and the
forties, evolution was considered a process of permanent
change in which species were constantly transformed and genes
were subject to mutation which modified them in all possible
directions. Change and randomness were the events on which
selection worked. Selection was essentially a 'diversifying,
accidental and disruptive' process. But as palaeontology
furnished more data, as embryology was studied in more detail
and as genetics became more refined, order became more and
more evident from every corner of the biological world.
Palaeontology was disclosing lines of evolution which seemed
to be independent of any type of accidental selection.
Embryology showed a most impressive order from fertilization
to adult formation. Genetics, with its position effects, non-
random crossing over and non-random rearrangements, was
pointing to a more ordered chromosome behaviour.
Since selection had to 'explain' evolution at any price it was
suddenly given completely opposite properties. 'Stabilizing
selection' was a term created by SIMPSON (1953), 'canalizing
selection' was coined by WADDINGTON (1957), and
'directional selection' appeared in SCHMALHAUSEN'S work
(1949).
An example, among many, is the creation of the term
'orthoselection' by WHITE (1973) to interpret the finding that
chromosomes show a very ordered organization and evolution.
The term is in itself contradictory since 'ortho-' means straight
and 'selection' is understood as acting on a chaotic and
unpredictable chromosome. Moreover, orthogenesis is usually
understood to mean a trend in evolution which has occurred
independently of selection.
Another term very often used is 'selection pressure'. It was
originally coined by WRIGHT in 1921 but it has been used in
so many different connections that one wonders what it actually
means in evolutionary terms (cf. RIEGER _et al._ 1968).
'Stabilizing' selection has also been called 'centripetal' or
'normalizing' selection (SIMPSON 1953) and is supposed to
favour a single optimum in the population, eliminating the
peripheral variants. On the other hand, 'disruptive' or
'centrifugal' selection (SIMPSON 1953) simultaneously favours
more than one optimum in a population occupying a
heterogeneous habitat; two or more different genotypes being at
an advantage and intermediate types being at a disadvantage.
Therefore selection can both disrupt and stabilize. Selection is
supposed to randomize in most cases, but to explain adaptation
one had to give it the opposite attribute of canalization or
directing capacity. 'Directional' selection, also called
'progressive', 'linear' and 'dynamic' selection
(SCHMALHAUSEN 1949), is considered to result in a
systematic shift in gene frequencies and in the population mean
for the character considered, the result being a state of
adaptation (DOBZHANSKY _et al._ 1977).
This approach has now ramified into sociobiology. 'Stabilizing
selection' and 'disruptive selection' are used by WILSON (1980)
as tenets of the present evolutionary approach to social
behaviour.
_The phlogiston had, like selection, the most contradictory
properties_
The XVIII-century phlogiston was an invisible substance. As
pointed out by LAPP (1965) it was an "all-purpose ingredient
which could be used to explain all manner of chemical
reactions". The similarity with the present use of selection to
solve evolutionary problems is evident. But the analogy goes
deeper. The phlogiston could: (1) have weight, (2) be
weightless or (3) even exhibit negative weight. It was these
contradictory properties that allowed it to explain every
chemical situation but which finally led to the exposure of the
inadequacy of this chemical interpretation.
more 1988 Lima-de-Faria
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990727211504.2639819B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Another reference to phlogiston is in
Rosen
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980913231459.8446A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	05 Apr 2007 10:13:53 PM

wrote:

On Apr 5, 12:27 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

If your quote mining has a point, it is not clear what that point is.
lojbab
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	06 Apr 2007 11:18:32 AM

On Apr 5, 11:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 5, 12:27 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

You will also find that his responses make JDay's replies look linear...

"linear"

Lima-de-Faria, A. 1988. _Evolution without Selection: Form and
Function by Autoevolution_ (NY: Elsevier), 349+pp. Lima-de-Faria is
with the Institute of Molecular Cytogenetics, University of Lund,
Sweden, and also wrote _Molecular Evolution and Organization of the
Chromosome_ (NY: Elsevier, 1983). Two sections on 9-10:

If your quote mining has a point, it is not clear what that point is.

OK.
_Paleobiology_ 3: 134 (1977), Gould & Eldredge:
In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence
a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing ('all
these years of work and I haven't found any evolution').
1980 Eldredge: "time to reexamine" theory of NS
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0311302356490.22520-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
history of the rise & fall of the Synthetic Euphoria
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156259059.973810.299560%40p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	06 Apr 2007 02:13:53 PM

wrote:

On Apr 5, 11:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 5, 12:27 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

You will also find that his responses make JDay's replies look linear...

"linear"

If your quote mining has a point, it is not clear what that point is.

I repeat.
If your quote mining has a point, it is not clear what that point is.
I'm not going to read a raft of URLs to try to figure out your point.
lojbab
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	06 Apr 2007 02:31:49 PM

In article <tt6d131t8um8k98nrskkm1qj2ojfn6195v@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:

dford3@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 5, 11:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 5, 12:27 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

You will also find that his responses make JDay's replies look linear...

"linear"

If your quote mining has a point, it is not clear what that point is.

I repeat.

If your quote mining has a point, it is not clear what that point is.

I'm not going to read a raft of URLs to try to figure out your point.

lojbab

Told ya.
-- cary
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	06 Apr 2007 07:20:17 PM

On Apr 6, 3:31 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <tt6d131t8um8k98nrskkm1qj2ojfn61...@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> writes:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 5, 11:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 5, 12:27 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

You will also find that his responses make JDay's replies look linear...

"linear"

If your quote mining has a point, it is not clear what that point is.

OK.

I repeat.

If your quote mining has a point, it is not clear what that point is.

I'm not going to read a raft of URLs to try to figure out your point.

Told ya.

Cary is a prophet.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Neo-Nazis, I suggest you study the writings of that scientist, and
prophet of Darwin in England, T.H. Huxley.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1146056580.480126.106210%40e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
Study of the god Darwin's writings, including his bible, might also
prove enlightening.
Hitler & Darwin URLs
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7bb70dd31802664e?hl=en&
god i.e. Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net
1874 Huxley: "unbelieving dogs who resist the Prophet of Evolution"
i.e. Haeckel
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141181413.323360.165370%40p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
Gould: "Haeckel.... contributed to the rise of Nazism"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1158864074.051352.81770%40h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
.

User: "Cary Kittrell"
Title: Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1	06 Apr 2007 07:52:02 PM

In article <1175905217.315160.226850@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>

writes:

On Apr 6, 3:31 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <tt6d131t8um8k98nrskkm1qj2ojfn61...@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> writes:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 5, 11:13 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 5, 12:27 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

You will also find that his responses make JDay's replies look linear...

"linear"

If your quote mining has a point, it is not clear what that point is.

OK.

I repeat.

If your quote mining has a point, it is not clear what that point is.

I'm not going to read a raft of URLs to try to figure out your point.

Told ya.

Sonny, I was writing a paper on Thomas Henry before you were born.
Fortunately for us all, Julian inherited his scientific ability,
and Aldous the power of his style.
-- cary
.

User: ""
Title: were T.H. Huxley and Julian Huxley racists?	08 Apr 2007 06:20:25 AM

On Apr 6, 8:52 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote in
"Re: Blog Against Theocracy #1":

In article <1175905217.315160.226...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>

writes:

On Apr 6, 3:31 pm,

(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

In article <tt6d131t8um8k98nrskkm1qj2ojfn61...@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> writes:

I'm not going to read a raft of URLs to try to figure out your point.

Told ya.

Cary is a prophet.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Neo-Nazis, I suggest you study the writings of that scientist, and
prophet of Darwin in England, T.H. Huxley.

Sonny, I was writing a paper on Thomas Henry before you were born.

Fortunately for us all, Julian inherited his scientific ability,
and Aldous the power of his style.

Do you think T.H. Huxley was a racist?
Do you think Julian Huxley was a racist?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1864 Huxley on lower and higher races, and the Aryan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1142351559.965395.318780%40v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
1993 Michael Ruse: "for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a
kind of secular religion"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1164729280.977099.300830%40h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Huxley's sermons have exegesis of god's holy scriptures
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1157035607.079463.274980%40m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com
1983 Russell F. Doolittle on origin of life on earth: developed in
stages/evolved; 1959 Julian Huxley: "all aspects of reality are
subject to evolution"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970802094315.27893C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
control - f/ "find" for mentions of: whoa
goes to the more interesting sections.
Aldous Huxley
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409011924.24cd0ea7%40posting.google.com
Let's sterilize the [J. Huxley]"genetically subnormal"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1145972476.317841.105780%40i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
1938 Shull: "Admixture of white blood is...related to
professional...success of the Negro."; Darwin; Huxley
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1142222711.810377.220200%40j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Huxley on The Aryan Question
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141703715.940457.279720%40i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
1860 atheism-adherent Huxley:
"the Almighty...him" = "Nature....she";
"Divine Government";
"deep sense of religion...compatible with the entire absence of
theology"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141353908.308726.161380%40z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
1874 Huxley: "unbelieving dogs who resist the Prophet of Evolution"
i.e. Haeckel
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1141181413.323360.165370%40p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
Darwin praise for Rolle, T.H. Huxley, Buchner, & Haeckel
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134766736.390460.205460%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Darwin, T.H. Huxley, Haeckel, Trotha, Goebbels, Hitler, Marx, O'Hair
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133186735.613068.108090%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Neo-Nazis, I suggest you study the writings of that scientist, and
prophet of Darwin in England, T.H. Huxley.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1146056580.480126.106210%40e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
1988 M.J. French on the buttercup and the locomotive; 1953 J. Huxley
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411251245.129ea4a2%40posting.google.com
1860 Thomas H. Huxley: "one is almost involuntarily possessed by the
notion, that some more subtle aid to vision than an achromatic, would
show the hidden artist, with his plan before him, striving with
skilful manipulation to perfect his work"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0412011738.4fe29d9a%40posting.google.com
1860 T.H. Huxley on knowing "all the consequences to which all
possible combinations, continued through unlimited time, can give
rise"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0402142040.31d13e07%40posting.google.com
1982 Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; 1925 Osborn;
1940 Haldane on materialism; 1996 and 1995 Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley
on slow rate and gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of and
extracts from 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_ paper
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com
Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; 1987 Powell; gradualism and
J. Huxley, Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1944 J. Huxley, 1986 Lewin, 1985 Kemp, 1991 Lewontin
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9909011608210.1038433-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1957 Julian Huxley on _Religion without Revelation_
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407270344.53d3af56%40posting.google.com
Agree with J. Huxley's "no"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405271915.6b9b6ce1%40posting.google.com
Can anybody think of data that would lead a devout materialist to
cease to [1923 J. Huxley]"reject any explanation which proceeds... by
miracles"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990818214806.410371A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: were T.H. Huxley and Julian Huxley racists?	08 Apr 2007 11:39:59 AM

wrote:

Do you think T.H. Huxley was a racist?

Do you think Julian Huxley was a racist?

Probably. Most people are racist to some extent. Probably you as
well. Take the implicit-associations test on:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
But why should this matter?
William Shockley, who invented the transistor, was an especially
virulent racist and eugenicist. He still was one of the greater
scientists of the 20th century, earned a Nobel Prize, co-invented the
transistor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley
His racism was appalling, but his science was science.
lojbab
.

User: ""
Title: Re: were T.H. Huxley and Julian Huxley racists?	08 Apr 2007 09:29:46 PM

On Apr 8, 12:39 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

Do you think T.H. Huxley was a racist?

Do you think Julian Huxley was a racist?

Probably.

Do you think Darwin was a racist?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1883 Darwin: "When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the
progeny seems to be eminently bad."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136399794.077073.47030%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Darwin: big "supra-orbital ridges... characteristic of the lower races
of man"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137443730.121635.125640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Darwin on certain "distinct races" of humans being "distinct species"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134742746.958656.6900%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1871 Darwin: [CD]"the civilised races of man"-- e.g. [CD]"the
Caucasian"-- [CD]"will almost certainly exterminate and replace
throughout the world the savage races"-- e.g. [CD]"the negro or
Australian," as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being
[CD]"man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the
Caucasian"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com
Darwin: "the New Zealander... compares his future fate with that of
the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
1864 Huxley on lower and higher races, and the Aryan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1142351559.965395.318780%40v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com

Most people are racist to some extent. Probably you as
well. Take the implicit-associations test on:https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

But why should this matter?

William Shockley, who invented the transistor, was an especially
virulent racist and eugenicist. He still was one of the greater
scientists of the 20th century, earned a Nobel Prize, co-invented the
transistor.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley
His racism was appalling, but his science was science.

http://www.pbs.org/transistor/album1/shockley/shockley3.html
Pride before the fall
Arrogant, unwilling to listen, tactless and determined
he would never repeat the mistakes he made with
Brattain and Bardeen, Shockley's innate paranoia
finally erupted. In September, 1957, less than a
year after Shockley won the Nobel Prize
==
In the ultimate irony, today's transistors are based
on Shockley's original field effect design. Shockley,
however, never manufactured any.
Race to disgrace
==
He began giving speeches on population problems,
an issue that had interested him since his wartime
trips to India. In May of 1963, he gave a speech at
Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota
suggesting that the people least competent to
survive in the world were the ones reproducing the
fastest, while the best of the human population was
using birth control and having fewer children. He
had slipped into eugenics.
In an interview a year later with U.S. News & World
Report he fell into the trap of discussing race. He
pointed out that African Americans as a group
scored 15 points lower on IQ tests, and suggested
the cause was hereditary.
Shockley found himself-- not unhappily-- in a swirl
of controversy. Biologists and geneticists blasted his
theories, pointing out that eugenics was a rationale
used by the Nazis during World War II, and was an
idea that had a weak scientific foundation. Shockley
was attacked in print, on television, and in scientific
journals.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"He pointed out [in 1964] that African Americans as a group
scored 15 points lower on IQ tests, and suggested the cause was
hereditary."
1923 Holmes
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1133927305.339964.266320%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
"the people least competent to survive in the world were the ones
reproducing the fastest"
Darwin: [Greg]"the careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies
like rabbits"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135088486.532238.194930%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
"while the best of the human population was using birth control and
having fewer children"
Darwin quoting Greg, URL above.
But especially compare:
Hitler
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch02.html
A folk-State should in the first place raise matrimony
from the level of being a constant scandal to the
race. The State should consecrate it as an
institution which is called upon to produce creatures
made in the likeness of the Lord and not create
monsters that are a mixture of man and ape. The
protest which is put forward in the name of humanity
does not fit the mouth of a generation that makes it
possible for the most depraved degenerates to
propagate themselves, thereby imposing
unspeakable suffering on their own products and
their contemporaries, while on the other hand
contraceptives are permitted and sold in every drug
store and even by street hawkers, so that babies
should not be born even among the healthiest of our
people. In this present State of ours, whose function
it is to be the guardian of peace and good order, our
national bourgeoisie look upon it as a crime to make
procreation impossible for syphilitics and those who
suffer from tuberculosis or other hereditary
diseases, also cripples and imbeciles. But the
practical prevention of procreation among millions of
our very best people is not considered as an evil,
nor does it offend against the noble morality of this
social class but rather encourages their short-
sightedness and mental lethargy. For otherwise
they would at least stir their brains to find an answer
to the question of how to create conditions for the
feeding and maintaining of those future beings who
will be the healthy representatives of our nation and
must also provide the conditions on which the
generation that is to follow them will have to support
itself and live.
Also compare Darwin in:
an exercise: parallels between 1871 Darwin & 1924/5 Hitler?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1134448996.907734.300780%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
4 more Hitler-Darwin parallels
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135092414.972723.104980%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler's debt to American eugenicists
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/offSiteArchive/HitlerDebtToAmerica.html
Hitler's actions make sense given his atheism and eugenic, social
Darwinist vision
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1134145559.645139.229550%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
July 1947 indictment by Allies of SS Race and Settlement
Office leaders. Cited in
Black, Edwin. 2003. _War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's
Campaign to Create a Master Race_ (NY: Four Walls Eight Windows),
550pp., 405.
Kidnapping the children of foreign nationals in order to
select for Germanization those who were considered of
'racial value.'.... Encouraging and compelling abortions
on Eastern workers.... Preventing marriages and
hampering reproduction of enemy nationals.
Haeckel on killing the disabled
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a8etdF65smnrU4%40individual.net
Darwin on selection of Spartan children
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135004225.246782.327080%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: were T.H. Huxley and Julian Huxley racists?	08 Apr 2007 10:07:38 PM

wrote:

On Apr 8, 12:39 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

Do you think T.H. Huxley was a racist?

Do you think Julian Huxley was a racist?

Probably.

Do you think Darwin was a racist?

As I said, most people are racist to some extent.
Doesn't matter. His science was good science.
[irrelevant noise deleted]
lojbab
.

User: ""
Title: Re: were T.H. Huxley and Julian Huxley racists?	09 Apr 2007 06:50:32 AM

On Apr 8, 11:07 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 8, 12:39 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

Do you think T.H. Huxley was a racist?

Do you think Julian Huxley was a racist?

Probably.

Do you think Darwin was a racist?

As I said, most people are racist to some extent.

Doesn't matter. His science was good science.

[irrelevant noise deleted]

"His [Darwin's] science was good science."
Are you aware of any predictions of Darwin's theory of natural
selection?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS's "crazy-quilt" prediction
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Darwin: "When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the
progeny seems to be eminently bad."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136399794.077073.47030%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Darwin: big "supra-orbital ridges... characteristic of the lower races
of man"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137443730.121635.125640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Darwin on certain "distinct races" of humans being "distinct species"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134742746.958656.6900%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1871 Darwin: [CD]"the civilised races of man"-- e.g. [CD]"the
Caucasian"-- [CD]"will almost certainly exterminate and replace
throughout the world the savage races"-- e.g. [CD]"the negro or
Australian," as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being
[CD]"man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the
Caucasian"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com
Darwin: "the New Zealander... compares his future fate with that of
the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
1864 Huxley on lower and higher races, and the Aryan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1142351559.965395.318780%40v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: were T.H. Huxley and Julian Huxley racists?	09 Apr 2007 06:27:26 PM

wrote:

On Apr 8, 11:07 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 8, 12:39 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

Do you think T.H. Huxley was a racist?

Do you think Julian Huxley was a racist?

Probably.

Do you think Darwin was a racist?

As I said, most people are racist to some extent.

Doesn't matter. His science was good science.

[irrelevant noise deleted]

"His [Darwin's] science was good science."

Are you aware of any predictions of Darwin's theory of natural
selection?

I refer you to the talk.origins FAQ
lojbab
.

User: ""
Title: most-impressive prediction of Darwin's theory of NS?	09 Apr 2007 08:35:16 PM

On Apr 9, 7:27 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in "Re:
were T.H. Huxley and Julian Huxley racists?":

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 8, 11:07 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 8, 12:39 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

Do you think T.H. Huxley was a racist?

Do you think Julian Huxley was a racist?

Probably.

Do you think Darwin was a racist?

As I said, most people are racist to some extent.

Doesn't matter. His science was good science.

[irrelevant noise deleted]

"His [Darwin's] science was good science."

Are you aware of any predictions of Darwin's theory of natural
selection?

I refer you to the talk.origins FAQ

In your opinion, what is the most-impressive of the predictions of
Darwin's theory of natural selection?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS's "crazy-quilt" prediction
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Darwin: "When two races, both low in the scale, are crossed the
progeny seems to be eminently bad."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1136399794.077073.47030%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Darwin: big "supra-orbital ridges... characteristic of the lower races
of man"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1137443730.121635.125640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Darwin on certain "distinct races" of humans being "distinct species"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1134742746.958656.6900%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
1871 Darwin: [CD]"the civilised races of man"-- e.g. [CD]"the
Caucasian"-- [CD]"will almost certainly exterminate and replace
throughout the world the savage races"-- e.g. [CD]"the negro or
Australian," as in Australian aborigine-- with the end result being
[CD]"man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the
Caucasian"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407060404.711490be%40posting.google.com
Darwin: "the New Zealander... compares his future fate with that of
the native rat now almost exterminated by the European rat"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1135178729.788016.144250%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
1864 Huxley on lower and higher races, and the Aryan
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1142351559.965395.318780%40v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: most-impressive prediction of Darwin's theory of NS?	09 Apr 2007 09:50:31 PM

wrote:

On Apr 9, 7:27 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in "Re:
were T.H. Huxley and Julian Huxley racists?":

Are you aware of any predictions of Darwin's theory of natural
selection?

I refer you to the talk.origins FAQ

In your opinion, what is the most-impressive of the predictions of
Darwin's theory of natural selection?

"Impressive" is not an attribute of a scientific prediction.
lojbab
.

User: ""
Title: how did genetic information arise?	13 Apr 2007 11:53:05 AM

On Apr 9, 10:50 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in Re:
most-impressive prediction of Darwin's theory of NS?:

dfo...@gl.umbc.edu wrote:

On Apr 9, 7:27 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in "Re:
were T.H. Huxley and Julian Huxley racists?":

Are you aware of any predictions of Darwin's theory of natural
selection?

I refer you to the talk.origins FAQ

In your opinion, what is the most-impressive of the predictions of
Darwin's theory of natural selection?

"Impressive" is not an attribute of a scientific prediction.

How do you account for the origin of the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic
information within:
a human?
a bacterium?
the first biological lifeform?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
How does a blindwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human?
a bacterium?
the first biological lifeform?
"totallyblindprocessesdidit" is not an answer.
Neither is "neodarwiniannaturalselectiondidit" an answer.
Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1985. _Seven Clues to the Origin of
Life: A Scientific Detective Story_ (Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press), 131pp. Paragraphs on 9-10:
Every organism has in it a store of what is called genetic
information. This is a set of instructions about how the
rest of the organism, its phenotype, is to be made and
maintained. I will refer to an organism's genetic
information store as its Library. Man's Library, for
example, consists of a set of construction and service
manuals that run to the equivalent of about a million
book-pages, altogether. Simpler organisms, such as
bacteria, make do with much less information in their
Libraries. But even the thousand pages or so needed for
a bacterium is still quite a weighty manual.
The pages in these figurative books are closely printed
in a script that uses just four symbols. You can imagine
these as, say, the letters a to d filling line after line of
page after page with very little apparent rhyme or reason
in the order of the symbols. Of course the lack of
obvious order allows the possibility that a symbol
sequence might be carrying messages of some sort.
Although there are suspicions that some Libraries, such
as man's, could often do with some crisp editing, there is
no doubt that many if not most of the letter sequences do
indeed hold messages of some sort. Indeed many such
messages have been decoded.
An organism that is big enough to be visible to the
naked eye is made up of a large number of
compartments, or cells-- usually of a variety of sorts
with different functions. The materials of our bodies,
materials such as skin, bone, blood, nerve, etc., are each
made from a few sorts of characteristic cells.
Where is the Library in such a multicellular organism?
The answer is everywhere. With a few exceptions every
cell in a multicellular organism has a complete set of all
the books in the Library. As such an organism grows its
cells multiply and in the process the complete central
Library gets copied again and again.
Compare
Einstein's library analogy; Einstein was a deist
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32dn33F3k6nflU1%40individual.net
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human?
a bacterium?
the first biological lifeform?
Let's look at other situations for clues as to possible responses.
Yockey, Hubert P. 1974. "An Application of Information
Theory to the Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis"
_Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 46:369-406. On 371:
The vast majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all
sequences of length _N_, of letters of a written language
have no assigned meaning or specificity. The same is true
of sequences of digits zero through nine and of musical
notes. However, embedded in the ensemble of all such
sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the lost works of
Aristotle, the numbers {pie} and e. The ensemble of all
musical notes contains Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. It
also contains... forms of random noise. By the same token
the protein sequences of length _N_, which carry
specificity, are embedded in the ensemble of all amino
acids sequences of length _N_. Those sequences which
carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the ensemble.
Given a basically infinite number of sequences of nucleotides that
could
conceivably exist, only a [Yockey]"tiny fraction" of those conceivable
sequences could code for something that could live. Only a fraction
of
the sequences that would code for anything that could live would code
for a "simple" bacterium.
Question: how would a superintellect/ superior mind go about
identifying-- out of a basically infinite number of conceivable
nucleotide sequences-- go about identifying those sequences that would
code for something that would live?
Let's let that question simmer while we explore some similar
questions:
Question: how would an intellect/mind go about identifying-- out of a
basically infinite number of conceivable alphabet letter sequences--
identify those letter sequences that would spell out a message that
could convey meaning if read by another intellect/mind?
How would a mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite
number
of possible sequences of sounds-- identify those sound sequences that
constitute "music" and not "noise"?
How would a mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite
number
of possible sequences of chess moves-- identify lines of game
development that culminate in brilliant sacrifices and stunningly
beautiful combinations? All, of course, within the constraints of the
standard rules of chess?
How would a mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite
number
of possible arrangements of matter-- identify arrangements of matter
that would constitute a functional:
car engine?
computer?
rocketship?
microwave oven?
lamp?
electronic watch?
television set?
lightbulb?
airplane?
How would mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite number
of possible sequences of computer-program-type coding-- identify those
configurations of computer-program-type coding that code for
functional
computer software programs?
We recall now the question, How would a superintellect go about
identifying-- out of a basically infinite number of conceivable
nucleotide sequences-- go about identifying those sequences that would
code for something that would live?
Also, how would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon
those
nucleotide sequences-- out of a basically infinite number of
conceivable
sequences of nucleotides-- happen upon those nucleotide sequences that
would code for something that would live?
How would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon an _E.
coli_ bacterium nucleotide sequence?
How would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon a _Homo
sapiens_ nucleotide sequence?
How would totally-blind-at-every-level processes happen upon the first
biological lifeform's information content?
.

User: "Bob LeChevalier"
Title: Re: how did genetic information arise?	13 Apr 2007 02:09:40 PM

wrote:

On Apr 9, 10:50 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in Re:
most-impressive prediction of Darwin's theory of NS?:

In your opinion, what is the most-impressive of the predictions of
Darwin's theory of natural selection?

"Impressive" is not an attribute of a scientific prediction.

How do you account for the origin of the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic
information within:
a human?

Comes from the parents, subject to mutations (probably a few thousand
every generation, mostly insignificant)

a bacterium?

Usually comes from the parent, subject to mutations. Some bacteria do
gene transfer, which is how antibiotic resistance spreads quickly.

the first biological lifeform?\

If we every find it, I'll let you know. Probably it did not have DNA
genetic material, but rather RNA, and perhaps even something simpler
that we haven't yet identified.
Not relevant to the theory of evolution, which says nothing about the
origin of life.

Let's look at other situations for clues as to possible responses.

Yockey, Hubert P. 1974. "An Application of Information
Theory to the Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis"
_Journal of Theoretical Biology_ 46:369-406. On 371:
The vast majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all
sequences of length _N_, of letters of a written language
have no assigned meaning or specificity. The same is true
of sequences of digits zero through nine and of musical
notes. However, embedded in the ensemble of all such
sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the lost works of
Aristotle, the numbers {pie} and e. The ensemble of all
musical notes contains Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. It
also contains... forms of random noise. By the same token
the protein sequences of length _N_, which carry
specificity, are embedded in the ensemble of all amino
acids sequences of length _N_. Those sequences which
carry specificity are a tiny fraction of the ensemble.

Given a basically infinite number of sequences of nucleotides that
could
conceivably exist, only a [Yockey]"tiny fraction" of those conceivable
sequences could code for something that could live. Only a fraction
of the sequences that would code for anything that could live would code
for a "simple" bacterium.

Not relevant. Since all life shows evidence of relatedness in their
sequences, there is no need to worry about any other sequences that do
or do not form viable life.

Question: how would a superintellect/ superior mind go about
identifying-- out of a basically infinite number of conceivable
nucleotide sequences-- go about identifying those sequences that would
code for something that would live?

Look at things that live, and find their commonalty, and simplify.
We are not obliged to start from an infinite set of sequences, because
we know what one answer is.
That won't get the answer of ALL the sequences that are viable, but as
there are an uncountable number of such sequences, I am not sure why
one would expect to find all of them.

Let's let that question simmer while we explore some similar
questions:

Question: how would an intellect/mind go about identifying-- out of a
basically infinite number of conceivable alphabet letter sequences--
identify those letter sequences that would spell out a message that
could convey meaning if read by another intellect/mind?

All letter sequences MIGHT spell out a message to some mind. It might
be encrypted text, and any sequence might be a code for something
meaningful.

How would a mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite
number
of possible sequences of sounds-- identify those sound sequences that
constitute "music" and not "noise"?

All sequences are "music", since the difference between "music" and
"noise" is arbitrary.

How would a mind/intellect identify-- out of a basically infinite