| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Aug 2006 05:14:14 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
Darwin Was a Racist
A column in the news this week quoted a critic of Creationism asserting
that Darwin "was an enlightened fellow for his time who opposed the
racism endemic to his culture." That critic was simply espousing his
religion, the religion of evolution.
He knew not of what he spoke (or he lied) for all informed people know
that Darwin and his early followers were unabashed, unregenerated, and
unrepentant racists. Darwin and his disciples were not only
pseudo-scientists, (Darwin was an apostate preacher) but they were also
radical, rabid racists!
Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who
faked drawings to support evolution (and was found guilty in a
university court). He and others laid the foundation of racism and
imperialism that resulted in Hitler's racist regime.
Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote,
"I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on
the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the
atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust
possible."
More at:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17631.html
How does Darwin's views on race in any way affect the 150 years worth
of evidence that we have collected that support evolution through
natural selection? Darwin's personal views on race or anything else
have nothing to do with what we now know about evolution.
"the 150 years worth of evidence that we have collected that support
evolution through natural selection"
What are 2 of the stronger lines of laboratory experiment evidence
supporting the mutation-selection theory?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
history of the rise & fall of the Synthetic Euphoria
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1156259059.973810.299560%40p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
fruit fly URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
One literature search for "mutation"; mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
| User: "Sgt.Sausage" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
25 Aug 2006 05:54:05 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1156544054.169642.116220@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
[snip]
How does Darwin's views on race in any way affect the 150 years worth
of evidence that we have collected that support evolution through
natural selection? Darwin's personal views on race or anything else
have nothing to do with what we now know about evolution.
"the 150 years worth of evidence that we have collected that support
evolution through natural selection"
What are 2 of the stronger lines of laboratory experiment evidence
supporting the mutation-selection theory?
Give me a couple of million years and I'll tell ya. Until
then, it's just what you called it: A *theory*. I can't think
of a labratory experiment or field observation that's had near
enough time in a mere 150 years to even come close to
supporting (or falsifying) it. That is, after all, why it's called
the *theory* of natural selection and we don't yet refer to it
as the *law* of same.
Common sense would have forbidden even the asking
of such a question as yours. Until a decent, controlled,
longitudinal study of at least several thousands, if not
several millions of years has been concluded -- there
will not be any *evidence*. All we have is speculation,
and you know it. We can make educated guesses based
on the fossil record. We can make educated guesses
based upon micro-organisms grown in a pitri dish (that
do have times for millions of generations and random
mutations) -- but until we actually see it, it is a *theory*.
But -- here's the difference. The theory is based upon
what observations we *do* have, and quite a bit of
educated reasoning to fill in the gaps. While we're busy
filling in the gaps with logic, reason, observation, experiment
and whatnot, you're guilty of nothing more than the age old
"God in the Gaps" theory. Anything unknown or unexplained
is, must be, has always been, and forever will be explainable
by ... G.O.D.
Must suck to be you as those gaps are slowly but
surely closed off and explained away each and every
day. As time passes, more and more of your Gaps
are shown *not* to be God.
I'm sure neither you nor I will still be around when Mr.
Darwin is eventually proven correct -- but I'm far more
confident of the scientific process than I am of
the "God in the Gaps" methodology.
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
25 Aug 2006 07:40:06 PM |
|
|
Sgt.Sausage wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1156544054.169642.116220@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
[snip]
How does Darwin's views on race in any way affect the 150 years worth
of evidence that we have collected that support evolution through
natural selection? Darwin's personal views on race or anything else
have nothing to do with what we now know about evolution.
"the 150 years worth of evidence that we have collected that support
evolution through natural selection"
What are 2 of the stronger lines of laboratory experiment evidence
supporting the mutation-selection theory?
Give me a couple of million years and I'll tell ya. Until
then, it's just what you called it: A *theory*. I can't think
of a labratory experiment or field observation that's had near
enough time in a mere 150 years to even come close to
supporting (or falsifying) it. That is, after all, why it's called
the *theory* of natural selection and we don't yet refer to it
as the *law* of same.
Common sense would have forbidden even the asking
of such a question as yours. Until a decent, controlled,
longitudinal study of at least several thousands, if not
several millions of years has been concluded -- there
will not be any *evidence*. All we have is speculation,
and you know it. We can make educated guesses based
on the fossil record. We can make educated guesses
based upon micro-organisms grown in a pitri dish (that
do have times for millions of generations and random
mutations) -- but until we actually see it, it is a *theory*.
But -- here's the difference. The theory is based upon
what observations we *do* have, and quite a bit of
educated reasoning to fill in the gaps. While we're busy
filling in the gaps with logic, reason, observation, experiment
and whatnot, you're guilty of nothing more than the age old
"God in the Gaps" theory. Anything unknown or unexplained
is, must be, has always been, and forever will be explainable
by ... G.O.D.
Must suck to be you as those gaps are slowly but
surely closed off and explained away each and every
day. As time passes, more and more of your Gaps
are shown *not* to be God.
I'm sure neither you nor I will still be around when Mr.
Darwin is eventually proven correct -- but I'm far more
confident of the scientific process than I am of
the "God in the Gaps" methodology.
A couple things
1) Theories do not 'become' laws. Laws are not simply theories that
have been proven. Laws and theories are entirely different things.
2) Evolution has been observerd, both in the field and in the
labrotory. I am talking about true speciation. New species emerging
from older ones.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
02 Sep 2006 11:48:30 AM |
|
|
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
A couple things
1) Theories do not 'become' laws. Laws are not simply theories that
have been proven. Laws and theories are entirely different things.
2) Evolution has been observerd, both in the field and in the
labrotory. I am talking about true speciation. New species emerging
from older ones.
Meaning of "evolution" and "species"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
28 Aug 2006 02:16:34 AM |
|
|
Sgt.Sausage wrote:
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1156544054.169642.116220@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
[snip]
How does Darwin's views on race in any way affect the 150 years worth
of evidence that we have collected that support evolution through
natural selection? Darwin's personal views on race or anything else
have nothing to do with what we now know about evolution.
"the 150 years worth of evidence that we have collected that support
evolution through natural selection"
What are 2 of the stronger lines of laboratory experiment evidence
supporting the mutation-selection theory?
Give me a couple of million years and I'll tell ya. Until
then, it's just what you called it: A *theory*. I can't think
of a labratory experiment or field observation that's had near
enough time in a mere 150 years to even come close to
supporting (or falsifying) it. That is, after all, why it's called
the *theory* of natural selection and we don't yet refer to it
as the *law* of same.
Common sense would have forbidden even the asking
of such a question as yours. Until a decent, controlled,
longitudinal study of at least several thousands, if not
several millions of years has been concluded -- there
will not be any *evidence*. All we have is speculation,
and you know it. We can make educated guesses based
on the fossil record. We can make educated guesses
based upon micro-organisms grown in a pitri dish (that
do have times for millions of generations and random
mutations) -- but until we actually see it, it is a *theory*.
But -- here's the difference. The theory is based upon
what observations we *do* have, and quite a bit of
educated reasoning to fill in the gaps. While we're busy
filling in the gaps with logic, reason, observation, experiment
and whatnot, you're guilty of nothing more than the age old
"God in the Gaps" theory. Anything unknown or unexplained
is, must be, has always been, and forever will be explainable
by ... G.O.D.
Must suck to be you as those gaps are slowly but
surely closed off and explained away each and every
day. As time passes, more and more of your Gaps
are shown *not* to be God.
I'm sure neither you nor I will still be around when Mr.
Darwin is eventually proven correct -- but I'm far more
confident of the scientific process than I am of
the "God in the Gaps" methodology.
Interestingly, there are some observed incidences of speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
02 Sep 2006 11:50:07 AM |
|
|
Lucifer wrote:
Interestingly, there are some observed incidences of speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Meaning of "speciation"?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Meaning of "species"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Manny Feld" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
02 Sep 2006 02:49:41 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Interestingly, there are some observed incidences of speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Meaning of "speciation"?
Change in the gene frequency within a population.
Manny Feld
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
02 Sep 2006 09:56:23 PM |
|
|
Manny Feld wrote:
david ford wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Interestingly, there are some observed incidences of speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Meaning of "speciation"?
Change in the gene frequency within a population.
In that case, "speciation" occurs every time a pregnant woman gives
birth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
02 Sep 2006 10:04:15 PM |
|
|
On 2 Sep 2006 19:56:23 -0700, in alt.atheism
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in
<dford3-1157252183.045544.25770@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Manny Feld wrote:
david ford wrote:
Lucifer wrote:
Interestingly, there are some observed incidences of speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Meaning of "speciation"?
Change in the gene frequency within a population.
In that case, "speciation" occurs every time a pregnant woman gives
birth.
Oh my, David Ford managed not to get one completely wrong. I'm sure
he'll be patting himself on the back for months on this, even though he
will continue to keep himself from learning a thing about evolution in
the meantime.
By the way, the change in allele frequencies in a population over time
will _lead_ to speciation when there are separated populations that
started with the _same_ allele frequencies. You could say that the
_beginning_ of speciation happens whenever there are separated
populations of the same species.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Manny Feld" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
03 Sep 2006 12:59:42 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
In that case, "speciation" occurs every time a pregnant woman gives
birth.
No. It has to be a significant change. That is why speciation takes
place in the margins of a niche or where some kind of separation of the
population occurs, say by a natural barrier. Minor variations tend to be
smudged out without geographical separation. It took a river separating
the ancestors of the chimparnzees and bonobos to promote the
differentiation of the population. Eventually this produced bonobs and
chimpanzees which normally do not interbreed.
Manny Feld
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eyelessgame" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
27 Aug 2006 12:31:13 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
Darwin Was a Racist
A column in the news this week quoted a critic of Creationism asserting
that Darwin "was an enlightened fellow for his time who opposed the
racism endemic to his culture." That critic was simply espousing his
religion, the religion of evolution.
He knew not of what he spoke (or he lied) for all informed people know
that Darwin and his early followers were unabashed, unregenerated, and
unrepentant racists. Darwin and his disciples were not only
pseudo-scientists, (Darwin was an apostate preacher) but they were also
radical, rabid racists!
Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist, and a contemporary of Darwin, who
faked drawings to support evolution (and was found guilty in a
university court). He and others laid the foundation of racism and
imperialism that resulted in Hitler's racist regime.
Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote,
"I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on
the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the
atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust
possible."
More at:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17631.html
How does Darwin's views on race in any way affect the 150 years worth
of evidence that we have collected that support evolution through
natural selection? Darwin's personal views on race or anything else
have nothing to do with what we now know about evolution.
"the 150 years worth of evidence that we have collected that support
evolution through natural selection"
What are 2 of the stronger lines of laboratory experiment evidence
supporting the mutation-selection theory?
How about 41?
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc
eyelessgame
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
27 Aug 2006 06:34:48 PM |
|
|
Charles Darwin has been repeatedly falsely blamed for various
(unpleasant) political phenomena. In the case of Germany, the Nazis
were influenced by Haeckel, not Darwin. Haeckel articulated a somewhat
different theory of racial superiority rather than natural selection.
By the same token, the Stalinists were led around by Lysenko, who was
embelling Lemarcke, who theorized that acquired characteristics could
be immediately inherited. This led to a sort of Bolshevik racism (that
by growing up in a Communist society, their offspring would be
organically superior to other nationalities), and also led to an
enormous famine when none of Lysenko's teachings worked.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
02 Sep 2006 12:09:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Charles Darwin has been repeatedly falsely blamed for various
(unpleasant) political phenomena.
Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final
Solution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
In the case of Germany, the Nazis
were influenced by Haeckel, not Darwin.
Who was Haeckel "influenced by"?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
About meeting the god Darwin, that Prophet of Evolution and Atheism in
Germany, Ernst Haeckel, wrote this:
It was as if some exalted sage of Hellenic antiquity...
stood in the flesh before me.... [cited in Milner, 205]
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
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Haeckel articulated a somewhat
different theory of racial superiority rather than natural selection.
Details, please, about this "different theory."
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
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
Haeckel converted to atheism and remained an atheist, a prophet for the
'god' Darwin that loudly proclaimed his atheism, devotion to Darwin,
and truculent opposition to non-secular religions, including
Christianity.
If it helps, think of Haeckel as a prototype of Dawkins, and think of
Dawkins as a latter-day Haeckel.
Haeckel read _Origin_ at the age of 26.[Shipman, 76]
Haeckel was confirmed in his [Haeckel]"conviction of the truth of
Darwinism or transformism" after visiting an anatomist in June 1860 and
discussing the matter.[Shipman, 81]
Haeckel was ripe for accepting Darwinian transformism: before reading
_Origin_, Haeckel had [Shipman, 81]"no longer believed in Christianity,
and so was not offended by the antireligious implications of Darwin's
work as it was perceived at the time; Haeckel's God was Nature itself."
Haeckel in
Darwin, T.H. Huxley, Haeckel, Trotha, Goebbels, Hitler, Marx, O'Hair
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1133186735.613068.108090%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
By the same token, the Stalinists were led around by Lysenko, who was
embelling Lemarcke, who theorized that acquired characteristics could
be immediately inherited.
Had Darwin ever "theorized that acquired characteristics could be
immediately inherited"?
This led to a sort of Bolshevik racism (that
by growing up in a Communist society, their offspring would be
organically superior to other nationalities), and also led to an
enormous famine when none of Lysenko's teachings worked.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zinkovich" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
28 Aug 2006 01:40:10 AM |
|
|
David Ford, finally found proof that Hitler was not the Darwinist you
claimed him to be. To quote:
Mein Kampf, 1925:
Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is
solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he
is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips
but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow
God's handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men
were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their
faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation
and God's Will.
...
The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the
following:
Lowering of the level of the higher race; and physical and
intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely
progressing sickness.
To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin
against the will of the eternal creator.
Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature's
restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic
law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every
animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks
the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse
the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc.
...
Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is
replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and
continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty
Creator beings such as He Himself created?
From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very
beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us that
in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But
nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the
jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an
ape-like state to what he is today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice how the part about races does NOT specifically mention
evolution, but rather rebellion against God. His quest for racial
purification was not purely darwinist in scop, but was a combination of
religion and a racist bias he projected upon natural selction.
Also notice how he speaks out against man coming from apes. Hitler was
NOT an evolutionist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
28 Aug 2006 02:21:03 AM |
|
|
On 27 Aug 2006 23:40:10 -0700, "Zinkovich" <jzinkovich@gmail.com>
wrote:
David Ford, finally found proof that Hitler was not the Darwinist you
claimed him to be. To quote:
Mein Kampf, 1925:
Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is
solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he
is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips
but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow
God's handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men
were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their
faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation
and God's Will.
...
The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the
following:
Lowering of the level of the higher race; and physical and
intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely
progressing sickness.
To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin
against the will of the eternal creator.
Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature's
restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic
law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every
animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks
the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse
the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc.
...
Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is
replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and
continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty
Creator beings such as He Himself created?
From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very
beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us that
in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But
nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the
jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an
ape-like state to what he is today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice how the part about races does NOT specifically mention
evolution, but rather rebellion against God. His quest for racial
purification was not purely darwinist in scop, but was a combination of
religion and a racist bias he projected upon natural selction.
Also notice how he speaks out against man coming from apes. Hitler was
NOT an evolutionist.
We've been telling him that for years. But Ford was never one to let
the facts get in the way of his beliefs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
03 Sep 2006 06:52:53 AM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
We've been telling him that for years. But Ford was never one to let
the facts get in the way of his beliefs.
Spontaneous generation has occurred and can occur.
There aren't _any_ facts that get in the way of that belief.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
1994 Larry: "it seems logical that"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1153494152.829932.23350%40i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
2001 Gerald Schroeder, 1999 Paul Davies, 1992 Hubert Yockey, & 1968
Michael Polanyi: [Davies]"life cannot be 'written into' the laws of
physics" presently known
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33b2blF3tdum0U1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Manny Feld" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
03 Sep 2006 08:05:11 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
John Baker wrote:
We've been telling him that for years. But Ford was never one to let
the facts get in the way of his beliefs.
Spontaneous generation has occurred and can occur.
There aren't _any_ facts that get in the way of that belief.
Produce a certifiable case of sponteneous generation that has occurred
in the last billion years. References to vetted refereed scientific
literature only please. Creationist or ID sources do not count because
they are not properly vetted.
Manny Feld.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Rant: Darwin was a racist |
02 Sep 2006 11:57:28 AM |
|
|
eyelessgame wrote:
david ford wrote:
What are 2 of the stronger lines of laboratory experiment evidence
supporting the mutation-selection theory?
How about 41?
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc
How about 2. If you would, please present 2 of the stronger lines of
laboratory experiment evidence supporting the mutation-selection
theory.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Agree with J. Huxley's "no"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405271915.6b9b6ce1%40posting.google.com
1958 Eiseley on "careful domestic breeding"; 1863 Darwin: "the belief
in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general
considerations"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405130534.8eee3f1%40posting.google.com
fruit fly URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
fallacy of false extrapolation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
One literature search for "mutation"; mutation URLs
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
