NationStates Jolt Archive

Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics
Says Nazi regime’s genocidal project “may not be bad”

By Hilary White

LONDON, November 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A leading international anti-religion crusader and supporter of Darwinian theory, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has said that the pseudo-science of eugenics that drove the Nazi regime’s genocidal project “may not be bad.”

Since the end of the second world war, the name of eugenics, the social philosophy that the human species or particular races ought to be improved by selective breeding or other forms of genetic manipulation, is one that conjures instant images of the Nazi death camps and “racial hygiene” programs.

In a letter to the editor of Scotland’s Sunday Herald, Dawkins argues that the time has come to lay this spectre to rest. Dawkins writes that though no one wants to be seen to be in agreement with Hitler on any particular, “if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?”

Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, but is best known as one of the world’s most outspoken current opponents of religious belief, giving lectures and interviews and writing articles in which “fundamentalist” Christianity is among his favourite targets.

“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

Waits for the forum Bobbies . . .
"Nothing to see here, move along . . . "

Lots of popcorn for this one. *munches*

Hmm...

People using evolution to justify eugenics? You think this is noteworthy? Evolution is th whole theory behind genetics to begin with.

If you had come in full of righteous outrage over somebody supporting Hitler, and not tried to tie him to all evolutionists you might have a leg to stand on before it was cut out from under you by the liberal hordes.

As it is, I have only one thing to say to you. HA!

Lots of popcorn for this one. *munches*

Can I have some too?

Can I have some too?

*passes popcorn around*

[Quietly points out that every group has its crazies.]

Clearly, the ignorant are grasping for straws.

What is so atrocious about people deciding personally that they want to selectively choose to have a child with musical ability?

If it was forced, it would be wrong, but chosen? Meh...

Besides which, that has nothing to do with evolution and the article puts words in Dawkin's mouth, and twists them, rather like Creationists twist the reality of Evolution to fit their fundamentalists nonsense.

Now then...

http://www.genesbmx.com/trolls.jpg

Not exactly an unbiased, fair or balanced site to quote from. If Dawkins said so, he should have thought before speaking. And anyway, why can't there be silly extremists on both sides?

All of which said, eugenics has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is scientific fact. Eugenics is a pretty generally discredited political philospohy.

And remember, people, every time we feed a troll, God kills a kitten.

*settles back to watch*

*feeds the troll*

So since all "evolutionists" are represented by Dawkins, you would accept someone here advocating that all Christians are represented by Phelps?

Edit: How typical. A drive-by trolling by TRA.

Not exactly an unbiased, fair or balanced site to quote from. If Dawkins said so, he should have thought before speaking. And anyway, why can't there be silly extremists on both sides?

All of which said, eugenics has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is scientific fact. Eugenics is a pretty generally discredited political philospohy.

And remember, people, every time we feed a troll, God kills a kitten.

*settles back to watch*

[feeds the troll]

*feeds the troll*

So since all "evolutionists" are represented by Dawkins, you would accept someone here advocating that all Christians are represented by Phelps?

Damn, beat me to it.

Good point. Yes, all in favor of all Christians being represented by Phelps say "aye."

This guy is too cookiecutter to be real.

Hmmm...so because Richard Dawkins is a wacko, all evolutionists are wackos.

Richard Dawkins is a wacko.
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionist.
Ipso facto, all evolutionists are wackos.

Great line of reasoning there, genius. Never mind that evolution is proven. That's why, when the doctors prescribe antibiotics, they tell you to take all of them to kill off the bacteria before it has a chance to grow stronger and more resistant to the antibiotic.

And remember, people, every time we feed a troll, God kills a kitten.

*settles back to watch*

As long as it's not a puppy.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

So says the one with the bloodied hands of the hynotized who carry the cross of homicide.

So says the one with the bloodied hands of the hynotized who carry the cross of homicide.

The cross of... homicide?

Bloodied hands?

You are, (unless you have proof of this particular poster commiting murder) more or less agreeing with the base logic underlying the OP.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

Lifesite? So are the people on that website just plain stupid or just dishonest, libelous scum who bear false witness against others?

Here's Dawkins's letter (http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php) in its entirety. I figure if people like the OP are going to bash the man, they ought to at least have the balls to bash his entire statement as opposed to the spin put on it by some fucking spaz of a website.

IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
It should be noted here that nowhere does Dawkins advocate eugenics. In fact, his second to last sentence notes that he can think of real reasons why eugenics and/or selective breeding of humans is a bad idea. But hey, don't let that stop idiots from linking evolution and Naziism.

The cross of... homicide?

Bloodied hands?

You are, (unless you have proof of this particular poster commiting murder) more or less agreeing with the base logic underlying the OP.

That's kinda what he was going for, applying the same logic to the poster's beliefs.

The cross of... homicide?

Bloodied hands?

You are, (unless you have proof of this particular poster commiting murder) more or less agreeing with the base logic underlying the OP.

Incase you didn't realize, RA puts the fun in fundamentalism. I was pointing at the blood stained past of his faith, which he chooses to whole heartedly ignore.

Besides, I had to quote fron a GnR song.

I beleive that, on behalf of the Dada Party, I declare whore on this thread.

Let's everyone create our own list of songs and the colors you associate with them.

The cross of... homicide?

Bloodied hands?

You are, (unless you have proof of this particular poster commiting murder) more or less agreeing with the base logic underlying the OP.

Isn't the crucifix a cross of homicide, and therefore anyone who reveres it reveres murder? It's a bit of a stretch, but hey, if psycho christians want to turn evolutionists into Nazis...

I beleive that, on behalf of the Dada Party, I declare whore on this thread.

Let's everyone create our own list of songs and the colors you associate with them.

I'm waiting for RA's response before I officially call in WITCH.

Richard Dawkins isn't a "wacko" nor does he advocate eugenics, as the Nazz just pointed out.

Trolling.
Lying.
GTFO.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k117/SystemKarela/trollywood.jpg.jpg

I'm waiting for RA's response before I officially call in WITCH.

Is Mary Had a Little Lamb puce, or a nice light blue, do you think?

Is Mary Had a Little Lamb puce, or a nice light blue, do you think?

Light blue.

So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust...

Damn you Master Chief, you and your Darwinian Nazi atheist homosexual ways!

Is Mary Had a Little Lamb puce, or a nice light blue, do you think?

It's not yellow, it's chicken.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

Fuck off.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/AwJeeznotthisshitagain.jpg

Here's Dawkins's letter (http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php) in its entirety.
It sounds to me like that letter is saying that as a result of Nazi experiments with eugenics, that scientists are driven away from it because of the associated stigma. Further, it seems he saying that we shouldn't shy away from it because of the historical events that are associated with the scientific movement.

He is basically saying that genetic modification isn't such a bad thing. Dawkins isn't saying that we should do more research on eugenics. He is, however, suggesting that we don't shy away from learning how to make humans better through genetic experiments. With his reasoning, we wouldn't be selectively omitting undesirables from the gene pool, as Hitler and the Nazis did with their eugenics experiment.

It's not yellow, it's chicken.

By J.S. Bawk, then?

I call Godwin on both the OP and the quoted website. Just because both Hitler and Dawkins advocate eugenics does not make Dawkins a Nazi sympathizer. Hey, Hitler was a vegetarian, right? Does that mean all vegetarians want a Holocaust of the Jews? No.

Besides, Dawkins never actually supported eugenics, just discussed why it is seen in such a bad light.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

So can we Godwin this one out of the gate?

I'm going to ignore the troll, but answer a couple of Dawkins' questions.

“if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?”

Impossible? I doubt it is. Unethical? You bet your butt it is. We value cattle for milk, horses for speed, and dogs for herding skill, so we breed them that way. However, we generally do not look at human beings as tools to be used. When we breed the dog as a herder, we don't ask it, "Do you want to be a herder when you grow up?" We don't care. We train the dog to a purpose. Do we really want to reduce human beings to that level - bred and trained for a given purpose, whether they like it or not?

If, despite selective breeding, a dog that is not a good herder is born, it is generally given away as a pet (or just abandoned, but I'm not going to condone that). Do we really want a society in which children who don't have the particular talents they were bred for (or simply don't want to use them) are cast aside?

It is bad enough that parents quite often try and force their children into a role that the child does not want. Children are pushed into sports, into music, even into majors in college that are uninteresting to them. Do we really want to encourage this behavior?

Any parent who would consider breeding their child for a purpose are unworthy to be parents, are destined to be poor parents, and should be sterilized and disallowed from ever having custody of a child.

“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday.

It is acceptable to train runners and high jumpers but not to breed them because those who enter these events choose to do so. We can "force" music lessons on children for the same reason we "force" any lessons - for the purposes of education. We cannot, however, expect that the children enjoy music or that they

I call Godwin on both the OP and the quoted website. Just because both Hitler and Dawkins advocate eugenics does not make Dawkins a Nazi sympathizer. Hey, Hitler was a vegetarian, right? Does that mean all vegetarians want a Holocaust of the Jews? No.

Besides, Dawkins never actually supported eugenics, just discussed why it is seen in such a bad light.

Rhao, now is not the time for such considerations.

Consider, instead, the rotation of the eggshell.

I.E. Don't feed the troll...

Rhao, now is not the time for such considerations.

Consider, instead, the rotation of the eggshell.

I.E. Don't feed the troll...
Which is why you reply to someone who already fed the troll, so, you in essence didn't feed the troll, while being able to respond.

It sounds to me like that letter is saying that as a result of Nazi experiments with eugenics, that scientists are driven away from it because of the associated stigma. Further, it seems he saying that we shouldn't shy away from it because of the historical events that are associated with the scientific movement.

He is basically saying that genetic modification isn't such a bad thing. Dawkins isn't saying that we should do more research on eugenics. He is, however, suggesting that we don't shy away from learning how to make humans better through genetic experiments. With his reasoning, we wouldn't be selectively omitting undesirables from the gene pool, as Hitler and the Nazis did with their eugenics experiment.

The way I read it, he was saying that the Nazi experience has caused us to completely shut off any real discussion of it. We've effectively Godwined any discussion along those lines, and that, I agree is a problem. And he says himself that he can come up with reasons why there's a difference in breeding a cow for greater milk production and a child to be a great violinist. But the problem for him is that we're not even talking about it because of the Nazis, and maybe we ought to talk about it, before we find ourselves traveling down the designer baby road without having at least considered the potential pitfalls.

*passes popcorn around*

im a little late... lemme read the OP.

:eek: ...

:headbang:

im going to need some too

By J.S. Bawk, then?

I thought it was a fragment of a Bob Dylan lyric? Anyhoo,

http://i13.tinypic.com/2q8ar75.jpg

The way I read it, he was saying that the Nazi experience has caused us to completely shut off any real discussion of it. We've effectively Godwined any discussion along those lines, and that, I agree is a problem. And he says himself that he can come up with reasons why there's a difference in breeding a cow for greater milk production and a child to be a great violinist. But the problem for him is that we're not even talking about it because of the Nazis, and maybe we ought to talk about it, before we find ourselves traveling down the designer baby road without having at least considered the potential pitfalls.
That is a very valid point.

In attempting to move away something with a stigma and negative association, people will shut down any line of discussion because they want to render it taboo, given that it gave rise to a historical regime that turned people into into something racially idealistic.

Also, people may not be willing to discuss it because of pressure coming from those who believe life is sacred and that we would be playing God. This would create a bit of a problem for those waffling because they want to do what is ethically right, but they would have the moral right breathing down their neck, saying how this is against the will of God.

I call Godwin on both the OP and the quoted website. Just because both Hitler and Dawkins advocate eugenics does not make Dawkins a Nazi sympathizer. Hey, Hitler was a vegetarian, right? Does that mean all vegetarians want a Holocaust of the Jews? No.

Besides, Dawkins never actually supported eugenics, just discussed why it is seen in such a bad light.You didn't know all vegetarians are Nazi's?
It's a fact. The lack of protein cause a chemical imbalance, leading to paranoia and eventually Nazism. *nods sagely*

I thought it was a fragment of a Bob Dylan lyric?

Some lyrics, anyway.

Going to The Google informs me that it comes from "He looked up at the sun and said, 'It's not yellow, it's chicken!"

That is a very valid point.

In attempting to move away something with a stigma and negative association, people will shut down any line of discussion because they want to render it taboo, given that it gave rise to a historical regime that turned people into into something racially idealistic.

Also, people may not be willing to discuss it because of pressure coming from those who believe life is sacred and that we would be playing God. This would create a bit of a problem for those waffling because they want to do what is ethically right, but they would have the moral right breathing down their neck, saying how this is against the will of God.

We do, in one sense, already have "designer babies." Is it not true that sperm banks list the talents and accomplishments of the donors, so that a prospective mother can pick and choose?

Eugenics is old and outdated. And obsolete. And aged, ancient, debilitated, decrepit, deficient, doddering, elderly, enfeebled, exhausted, experienced, geriatric, gray, gray-haired, hoary, inactive, infirm, mature, matured, not young, olden, oldish, seasoned, senile, senior, superannuated, and tired.

Really, there are faster and more effective methods of gene manipulation than selective breeding. Like in vitro and screening. Just like what they did in Gattaca!
...
Why am I excited about that?

You didn't know all vegetarians are Nazi's?
It's a fact. The lack of protein cause a chemical imbalance, leading to paranoia and eventually Nazism. *nods sagely*
I thought that those types of people were $cientologists.

[QUOTE=Farnhamia;12009100]Evolution is scientific fact.QUOTE]

Evolution isn't fact; it's unproven. Evolution is a theory and nothing more.

Evolution isn't fact; it's unproven. Evolution is a theory and nothing more.

Which is levels higher than it's even closest competitors.

[QUOTE=Farnhamia;12009100]Evolution is scientific fact.QUOTE]

Evolution isn't fact; it's unproven. Evolution is a theory and nothing more.

So is gravity.

I'll write more when I stop accelerating upwards from my keystrokes.

[QUOTE=Farnhamia;12009100]Evolution is scientific fact.QUOTE]

Evolution isn't fact; it's unproven. Evolution is a theory and nothing more.

Evolution is a theory. Like all theories it's supported by all the available facts. It's passed all the available tests so far. It's on stronger footing than most theories. ID and Creationism aren't even theories. They're unscientific (due to their appeal to a supernatural explanation) hypotheses that contradict available evidence.

We do, in one sense, already have "designer babies." Is it not true that sperm banks list the talents and accomplishments of the donors, so that a prospective mother can pick and choose?
I think it's perfectly fair.

As humans, no matter how far we evolve, there is still a primitive desire in our reproductive lives to find a mate who is viable with desirable characteristics that we find suitable for our offspring. There are exceptions of course, though it doubt that women when given a choice would take the prospective sperm from someone who has qualities that are less than those of another.

mmmmmm, A proven theory saying that we evolved into what we are or a very old book stuffed with saying writen thousands of years ago.


what to chose :rolleyes:

So is gravity.

I'll write more when I stop accelerating upwards from my keystrokes.

:D

Theory is above hypothesis.
Hypothesis=idea.
Theory=idea with incomplete evidence.

Got it? Good. No more "it's just a thoery" "no it's fact" arguments.

It's an idea with some supporting evidence but we don't have a record of every living thing that ever was so the evidence is incomplete.

[QUOTE=The Kaza-Matadorians;12009272]

Evolution is a theory. Like all theories it's supported by all the available facts. It's passed all the available tests so far. It's on stronger footing than most theories. ID and Creationism aren't even theories. They're unscientific (due to their appeal to a supernatural explanation) hypotheses that contradict available evidence.

*sigh*

OK, what "facts" are you talking about? I have yet to see hard evidence to support evolution, and believe me, I look.

And just because ID and creationism appeal to a supreme being, doesn't mean they're unscientific. What evidence do you have that contradicts creationism/ID?

I think it's perfectly fair.

As humans, no matter how far we evolve, there is still a primitive desire in our reproductive lives to find a mate who is viable with desirable characteristics that we find suitable for our offspring. There are exceptions of course, though it doubt that women when given a choice would take the prospective sperm from someone who has qualities that are less than those of another.

Quite right. I was just saying that while people are decrying "designer babies," we already have that capacity and some people use it.

*sigh*

OK, what "facts" are you talking about? I have yet to see hard evidence to support evolution, and believe me, I look.

And just because ID and creationism appeal to a supreme being, doesn't mean they're unscientific. What evidence do you have that contradicts creationism/ID?

Haven't the time or the energy to give you a science lesson. I imagine Demipublicents and Bottle will be along later to do that. Where have you looked and not found evidence for evolution, by the way?

*passes popcorn around*

None for me thank you, my snack of choice is aborted fetuses. And I like to top it off with some homosexual lovemaking. :fluffle:

Honestly, this "Redemption Army" fella is very entertaining.

*sigh*

OK, what "facts" are you talking about? I have yet to see hard evidence to support evolution, and believe me, I look.

And just because ID and creationism appeal to a supreme being, doesn't mean they're unscientific. What evidence do you have that contradicts creationism/ID?

Creationism and ID are not science. The offer unsupported hypotheses which are untestable. There is no evidence against them because they cannot be tested.

The facts supporting evolution:
1. DNA exists
2. Mutations occur
3. There are finite resources that we must compete for.
4. These resources change.
5. Some mutations are beneficial, others are maleficient
6. Those who are better fit to gain resources pass on their DNA
THEREFORE: Micro-evolution occurs
7. Given enough accumulated mutations, speciation has occured.
8. The earth has existed for (can't remember the number, so we'll go with shit-tons) of years.
9. Life on earth has existed for a lesser, but still shit-tonny amount of time.
THEREFORE: Macro-evolution occurs.

Quite right. I was just saying that while people are decrying "designer babies," we already have that capacity and some people use it.
This is because people only see what they want to see, and many don't see that as a component of a 'designer' baby.

Haven't the time or the energy to give you a science lesson. I imagine Demipublicents and Bottle will be along later to do that. Where have you looked and not found evidence for evolution, by the way?

Oh, random places, I don't remember... but what I meant was that I haven't found any cold, hard evidence that can't be refuted

Creationism and ID are not science. The offer unsupported hypotheses which are untestable. There is no evidence against them because they cannot be tested.

The facts supporting evolution:
1. DNA exists
2. Mutations occur
3. There are finite resources that we must compete for.
4. These resources change.
5. Some mutations are beneficial, others are maleficient
6. Those who are better fit to gain resources pass on their DNA
THEREFORE: Micro-evolution occurs
7. Given enough accumulated mutations, speciation has occured.
8. The earth has existed for (can't remember the number, so we'll go with shit-tons) of years.
9. Life on earth has existed for a lesser, but still shit-tonny amount of time.
THEREFORE: Macro-evolution occurs.
Fix your post please. The faulty quoting makes it look like I'm defending ID and creationism.

Fix your post please. The faulty quoting makes it look like I'm defending ID and creationism.

I shall do no such thing! Freedom to slander now and forever!

Yeah... Fixed...

[QUOTE=The Kaza-Matadorians;12009310]

Creationism and ID are not science. The offer unsupported hypotheses which are untestable. There is no evidence against them because they cannot be tested.

The facts supporting evolution:
1. DNA exists
2. Mutations occur
3. There are finite resources that we must compete for.
4. These resources change.
5. Some mutations are beneficial, others are maleficient
6. Those who are better fit to gain resources pass on their DNA
THEREFORE: Micro-evolution occurs
7. Given enough accumulated mutations, speciation has occured.
8. The earth has existed for (can't remember the number, so we'll go with shit-tons) of years.
9. Life on earth has existed for a lesser, but still shit-tonny amount of time.
THEREFORE: Macro-evolution occurs.

The facts supporting evolution:
1. DNA exists - But the explanation given by evolution has thousands of holes in it. First of all, DNA ceases to exist in a Oxygen-rich environment, exactly what the earth was after the big bang. The theory that DNA exists because amino acid chains created it is extreme abiogenises.

2. Mutations occur - This I can agree with. 2-7 insist upon each other, so ill skip to 8.

8. The earth has existed for (can't remember the number, so we'll go with shit-tons) of years. - The idea that the earth has existed for billions of years doesnt prove evolution and doesnt disprove ID. sorry. same goes for #9

Fix your post please. The faulty quoting makes it look like I'm defending ID and creationism.
So... you're saying you don't? *takes DCD off her list of moronic creationists to mock at a later time* ;)

*sigh*

OK, what "facts" are you talking about? I have yet to see hard evidence to support evolution, and believe me, I look.

And just because ID and creationism appeal to a supreme being, doesn't mean they're unscientific. What evidence do you have that contradicts creationism/ID?

Then you're blind. There are ring species, there are new species of catterpillars that evolved in the last thousand years in Hawaii, and plenty of other examples. Hint: Look in a science book instead of in a bible.

Yes, appealing to a supreme being is unscientific. Science is the study of the NATURAL universe and relies on testing hypotheses. Since the supernatural by definition can violate natural laws it can't be tested. Since you clearly don't even know what science is you should probably not comment on it. It's clearly over your head.

Fix your post please. The faulty quoting makes it look like I'm defending ID and creationism.

I shall do no such thing! Freedom to slander now and forever!

Yeah... Fixed...

Jolt's been doing that today, putting the QUOTE tag in too many times at the top of the quote.

Oh, random places, I don't remember... but what I meant was that I haven't found any cold, hard evidence that can't be refuted

I don't understand what you don't understand about my proof. It really isn't complicated. Ironically, evolution isn't that complex an idea. It is easy to proove.

*sigh*

OK, what "facts" are you talking about? I have yet to see hard evidence to support evolution, and believe me, I look.

Have you looked in a biology textbook? Not to be rude, but they tend to have quite a lot of such evidence. If you have specific questions about the evolutionary process, you're welcome to bring them up, but I find it a wee bit hard to imagine that you've seen no evidence for any aspect of evolutionary theory.

And just because ID and creationism appeal to a supreme being, doesn't mean they're unscientific.

Yes, actually, it does. Science applies only to the natural, not the supernatural. One cannot test for God; thus, God is outside of the realm of science.

Oh, random places, I don't remember... but what I meant was that I haven't found any cold, hard evidence that can't be refutedCourse not. Evidence that can't be refuted isn't scientific. What we do have for evolution is evidence that hasn't been refuted.

Richard Dawkins has made more converts to Intelligent Design than any of their "scientists" with his militant dogmatism and attempt to evangelize people to atheism using his own religious interpretation of science. Really, I think the guy damages science a lot more than he helps it.

The guy knows a fuck of a lot of evolutionary biology, and he would've been better off if he had stuck to it and avoided all this goofy crusading stuff.

Course not. Evidence that can't be refuted isn't scientific. What we do have for evolution is evidence that hasn't been refuted.

Tell me, then, how you believe the universe was created.

So... you're saying you don't? *takes DCD off her list of moronic creationists to mock at a later time* ;)

The willful ignorance and outright lies of creationists are one of the things I hate most in life. They rank up there with holocaust deniers, KKK members and kid touchers in my mind.

The facts supporting evolution:
1. DNA exists - But the explanation given by evolution has thousands of holes in it. First of all, DNA ceases to exist in a Oxygen-rich environment, exactly what the earth was after the big bang. The theory that DNA exists because amino acid chains created it is extreme abiogenises.

Why are you asking me to defend abiogenesis? I'm not debating it. I'm debating evolution. If you want to debate abiogenesis, go elsewhere.

8. The earth has existed for (can't remember the number, so we'll go with shit-tons) of years. - The idea that the earth has existed for billions of years doesnt prove evolution and doesnt disprove ID. sorry. same goes for #9


Actually, it does. If Micro-evolution occurs, then given enough time, macro-evolution will occur. I included 8. to cut short any young earth bullshit.

Thread title reads: Evolutionists show their true colours.
Thread title should read: Troll shows his true colours.

I'm an atheist, and I do not support the Holocaust. Stop trying to put a religious spin on a horrifying and tragic event. That's expoitation, plain and simple.

this dawkins guy is actually being a hero really, i mean we can now all project our hate onto him, kill him and then feel temporarily satisfied that we killed some evil in the world:)

come on people we have a job to do!:sniper:

More blowhard jerkoff forum graffiti for NSG, the certified Troll Friendly Forum with Troll Friendly Mods

Tell me, then, how you believe the universe was created.

Well, technically that's a question science can't answer because we'd be using observational tools that exist inside of the universe in order to try and investigate something that existed before it.

I believe God had a role in it, but that's my belief. Nobody knows for sure what the truth is because it's unknowable by nature of our existence within the universe.

Oh, random places, I don't remember... but what I meant was that I haven't found any cold, hard evidence that can't be refuted

Could be evolution is wrong and ID is right. Could be your head is empty, and there's two little green men behind your eyes. The one on the right is the driver, the one on the left, the gunner. Can't tell 'til we open it up and look, though.

Tell me, then, how you believe the universe was created.

What the fuck does that have to do with evolution?

Tell me, then, how you believe the universe was created.What's that got to do with evolution? :confused:

Why are you asking me to defend abiogenesis? I'm not debating it. I'm debating evolution. If you want to debate abiogenesis, go elsewhere.

but by arguing that "DNA exists and that proves evolution" you imply that DNA exists simply because it exists.


Actually, it does. If Micro-evolution occurs, then given enough time, macro-evolution will occur. I included 8. to cut short any young earth bullshit.

i didnt say that i disagreed with micro or macro-evolution. the proof for that lies in the thousands of fossils we have recovered

Well, technically that's a question science can't answer because we'd be using observational tools that exist inside of the universe in order to try and investigate something that existed before it.Not quite true. Light has this tendency to travel only at light speed, which while being very fast isn't instant. Therefore, we can get pictures of the past with telescopes. Who knows? Maybe someday we'll get a picture of the beginning of the universe if it was far away enough!

800813s!

Actually, it does. If Micro-evolution occurs, then given enough time, macro-evolution will occur. I included 8. to cut short any young earth bullshit.

The only problem is that such a statement by itself falls in to an "is-ought" fallacy without supporting evidence; just because microevolution happens doesn't mean macroevolution necessarily happens unless you have evidence that it does (which, at least from my perspective, we most definitely do).

Now, there's very good predictive and physical evidence that it does occur, but that can't be derived from microevolution alone.

The facts supporting evolution:
1. DNA exists - But the explanation given by evolution has thousands of holes in it. First of all, DNA ceases to exist in a Oxygen-rich environment, exactly what the earth was after the big bang. The theory that DNA exists because amino acid chains created it is extreme abiogenises.

2. Mutations occur - This I can agree with. 2-7 insist upon each other, so ill skip to 8.

8. The earth has existed for (can't remember the number, so we'll go with shit-tons) of years. - The idea that the earth has existed for billions of years doesnt prove evolution and doesnt disprove ID. sorry. same goes for #9
The Earth didn't exist immediately after the Big Bang, which seems to be what you're implying. I believe the current estimates for the age of the Universe is between 13 and 15 billion years, but the Earth's only be here for 4.5 billion. And the early Earth did not have an oxygen-rich atmosphere until after the evolution of eukaryotes (or at least aerobic organisms). It's true that DNA isn't fond of oxygen, but that's beside the point.

What the fuck does that have to do with evolution?

You tell me that ID believers try to explain inexplicable things with irrefutable evidence, then you tell me "What the fuck does that have to do with evolution?" Nice.

The earth is part of the universe and was created in it. I want your explanation of how the universe came into being.

What the fuck does that have to do with evolution?

stop arguing with the OP, just say you totally agree with all of dawkins views and think he is far to liberal

then hopefully the OP will get all wound up and throw a tantrum

dont people know how to do anything right round here?!?:headbang:

but by arguing that "DNA exists and that proves evolution" you imply that DNA exists simply because it exists.

I'm not concerned with why DNA exists (That doesn't really matter to the issue at hand, it's a straw-man.).


i didnt say that i disagreed with micro or macro-evolution. the proof for that lies in the thousands of fossils we have recovered

That too, but that's just more correlation, I was using the simpleton's proof.

Not quite true. Light has this tendency to travel only at light speed, which while being very fast isn't instant. Therefore, we can get pictures of the past with telescopes. Who knows? Maybe someday we'll get a picture of the beginning of the universe if it was far away enough!

Well, actually, we can't know the exact moment when it occurred, so we're actually going to get closer and closer with each new generation of observational and mathematical discoveries, but we can't quite pinpoint the exact time due to the quantum effects of gravity during the first instant of the Big Bang.

800813s! 800813s!

Of the blue footed variety, of course.

You tell me that ID believers try to explain inexplicable things with irrefutable evidence, then you tell me "What the fuck does that have to do with evolution?" Nice.

The earth is part of the universe and was created in it. I want your explanation of how the universe came into being.


That has Nothing to do with Evolution.

It's immaterial, irrelevant, and a waste of perfectly good debate. It. Doesn't. Matter.

The willful ignorance and outright lies of creationists are one of the things I hate most in life. They rank up there with holocaust deniers, KKK members and kid touchers in my mind.
The problem, therein, is that people think education will make them amoral, or even immoral if they are forced to question their beliefs.

You've heard 'ignorance is bliss'? These types of people (referring to creationists) have a fragile world. They don't like what is different so, it's easier to shut out the world and live on, while preaching their mind-numbing drivel in the form of a self-righteous tirade.

Is it just me, or has no one else seen the OP since, well, the OP?

You tell me that ID believers try to explain inexplicable things with irrefutable evidence, then you tell me "What the fuck does that have to do with evolution?" Nice.

The earth is part of the universe and was created in it. I want your explanation of how the universe came into being.

1) The theory of evolution is an explanation of how the current diversity of life came to be. It's not an explanation of how life originally came to be. Don't discuss the theory if you don't even understand what it tries to explain.

2) I'm not sure how the universe came to be. Nobody knows for sure. That's the honest answer. Anyone claiming to know because some book written thousands of years ago said so is confusing faith with knowledge.

[QUOTE=The Kaza-Matadorians;12009310]

Creationism and ID are not science. The offer unsupported hypotheses which are untestable. There is no evidence against them because they cannot be tested.

The facts supporting evolution:
1. DNA exists
2. Mutations occur
3. There are finite resources that we must compete for.
4. These resources change.
5. Some mutations are beneficial, others are maleficient
6. Those who are better fit to gain resources pass on their DNA
THEREFORE: Micro-evolution occurs
7. Given enough accumulated mutations, speciation has occured.
8. The earth has existed for (can't remember the number, so we'll go with shit-tons) of years.
9. Life on earth has existed for a lesser, but still shit-tonny amount of time.
THEREFORE: Macro-evolution occurs.

1. ...This proves what?
2. Yep
3. ...ya, and?
4. of course
5. *agrees, again*
6. *agrees*
THEREFORE: Micro-evolution occurs (in theory). We haven't witnessed something like this actually happening, and doesn't explain lots of things (like how the eye comes about)
7. Oh? Again, this is theory. We haven't seen anything like this, not even in fossil records. Sure, species change, but that doesn't necessarily mean they become something else entirely.
8. ... I can't see how the age of the earth matters, when we're arguing evolution...
9. This proves....what? It proves nothing. For example, crocodiles/alligators have existed for (many)millions of years (not sure exactly), but they're still pretty much the same they were back then...
THEREFORE: Well, I don't see how you just proved macro-evolution. I mean, some of evolution's most celebrated evidence (like those moths during the Industrial Revolution in Britain) has been shown to either be totally false or even fraudulent, which makes me very skeptical of evolutions validity...

Is it just me, or has no one else seen the OP since, well, the OP?

I'm pretty sure that Reddie is a Jesussaves style troll/puppet.

I want to know who he really is.

Is it just me, or has no one else seen the OP since, well, the OP?

Hence why he's a troll.

Is it just me, or has no one else seen the OP since, well, the OP?
That's because it's easier to accuse than validate one's shallow arguments with non-existent evidence.

Is it just me, or has no one else seen the OP since, well, the OP?

You noticed, eh? A Hit & Run Troll!

You tell me that ID believers try to explain inexplicable things with irrefutable evidence, then you tell me "What the fuck does that have to do with evolution?" Nice.We don't need to know how the universe came into being in order to discuss evolution on the planet earth. It'd be like needing to know the color of the President's underwear to discuss foreign policy.

The earth is part of the universe and was created in it. I want your explanation of how the universe came into being.If I had to explain where the piece of paper I'm writing my exam on came from every time I wrote one...

The Earth didn't exist immediately after the Big Bang, which seems to be what you're implying. I believe the current estimates for the age of the Universe is between 13 and 15 billion years, but the Earth's only be here for 4.5 billion. And the early Earth did not have an oxygen-rich atmosphere until after the evolution of eukaryotes (or at least aerobic organisms). It's true that DNA isn't fond of oxygen, but that's beside the point.

No, im not trying imply the earth simply existed immediately after the big bang. i do realize there are multiple things going on here.

What i am saying is scientists believe that DNA existed at the same time an oxygen rich environment existed, which it simply cannot. evolution does not explain this bug; abiogenesis does. i understand why you believe i think the earth was the earth now after the big bang, but thats not what im trying to say.

It never ceases to amaze me, how people actually think a constructive debate with MTAE/TRA is possible.

Is it just me, or has no one else seen the OP since, well, the OP?

eh, TRA frequently does it.

hes just a troll... thats all he is until he proves he can sustain his arguments.

No, im not trying imply the earth simply existed immediately after the big bang. i do realize there are multiple things going on here.

What i am saying is scientists believe that DNA existed at the same time an oxygen rich environment existed, which it simply cannot. evolution does not explain this bug; abiogenesis does. i understand why you believe i think the earth was the earth now after the big bang, but thats not what im trying to say.
Unless somethings very wrong with modern biology, it happens to be existing at the same time an oxygen rich environment exists now.

And ONE MORE TIME: Evolution =\= Abiogenesis. we are talking about evolution.

eh, TRA frequently does it.

hes just a troll... thats all he is until he proves he can sustain his arguments.

Wow, that takes me back...

...only the original TRA stuck around and argued. This one just flees the scene.

You tell me that ID believers try to explain inexplicable things with irrefutable evidence, then you tell me "What the fuck does that have to do with evolution?" Nice.

The earth is part of the universe and was created in it. I want your explanation of how the universe came into being.

"What the fuck does that have to do with evolution?" was an entirely reasonable (if, admittedly, not overly polite) answer. Evolution does not concern how life came into being in any way, let alone how the universe came into being. Your question is entirely off-topic.

No, im not trying imply the earth simply existed immediately after the big bang. i do realize there are multiple things going on here.

What i am saying is scientists believe that DNA existed at the same time an oxygen rich environment existed, which it simply cannot. evolution does not explain this bug; abiogenesis does. i understand why you believe i think the earth was the earth now after the big bang, but thats not what im trying to say.

I didn't think you meant "immediately" after the BB, so that's fine.

DNA exists now, in an oxygen-rich environment? Do we not exist? I'm answering you by saying that contrary to what you may have read, the early atmosphere - the pre-life atmosphere - had practically no free oxygen. A quote from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_earth): "The new atmosphere probably contained ammonia, methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, as well as smaller amounts of other gases. Any free oxygen would have been bound by hydrogen or minerals on the surface."

Oxygen only got into the atmosphere because of life.

I'm not gonna say anything about how crap this thread is.

I was bred for maximum performance on soft, damp semi-solid terrain. :)

I'm not gonna say anything about how crap this thread is.

Blue footed 80081Es!

We don't need to know how the universe came into being in order to discuss evolution on the planet earth. It'd be like needing to know the color of the President's underwear to discuss foreign policy.

thats an awfully quirky example, but thats beside the point.

all i am saying is there, of course, is a reason why the universe came to exist and that i dont believe that evolutionists or extreme right wing IDers like TRA or MTAE can explain this scientifically and flawlessly.

Blue footed 80081Es!

Yes.

I'm not gonna say anything about how crap this thread is.

You put me in mind of a famous zen story :)

[QUOTE=Kinda Sensible people;12009339]

1. ...This proves what?
2. Yep
3. ...ya, and?
4. of course
5. *agrees, again*
6. *agrees*
THEREFORE: Micro-evolution occurs (in theory). We haven't witnessed something like this actually happening, and doesn't explain lots of things (like how the eye comes about)

No. If these conditions are met, Micro-evolution occurs. The only question is what rate it occurs at.

7. Oh? Again, this is theory. We haven't seen anything like this, not even in fossil records. Sure, species change, but that doesn't necessarily mean they become something else entirely.
8. ... I can't see how the age of the earth matters, when we're arguing evolution...
9. This proves....what? It proves nothing. For example, crocodiles/alligators have existed for (many)millions of years (not sure exactly), but they're still pretty much the same they were back then...
THEREFORE: Well, I don't see how you just proved macro-evolution. I mean, some of evolution's most celebrated evidence (like those moths during the Industrial Revolution in Britain) has been shown to either be totally false or even fraudulent, which makes me very skeptical of evolutions validity...

Ah... The moths... Y'know, practically no one even uses them any more. They are a straw-man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Misunderstandings_about_modern_evolutionary_biology

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Read those, and come back to me.

thats an awfully quirky example, but thats beside the point.

all i am saying is there, of course, is a reason why the universe came to exist and that i dont believe that evolutionists or extreme right wing IDers like TRA or MTAE can explain this scientifically and flawlessly.

You're giving him/her too much credit. MTAE/TRA is just an attention whore posting sensationalist troll threads one after another. What amazes me is people think intelligent, reasonable debate works on attention whores.

thats an awfully quirky example, but thats beside the point.

all i am saying is there, of course, is a reason why the universe came to exist and that i dont believe that evolutionists or extreme right wing IDers like TRA or MTAE can explain this scientifically and flawlessly.That's funny, because by definition, an evolutionist wouldn't really be trying to in the first place.

thats an awfully quirky example, but thats beside the point.

all i am saying is there, of course, is a reason why the universe came to exist and that i dont believe that evolutionists or extreme right wing IDers like TRA or MTAE can explain this scientifically and flawlessly.

Science isn't concerned about why. Only how. You want why? Look to religion.

You're giving him/her too much credit. MTAE/TRA is just an attention whore posting sensationalist troll threads one after another. What amazes me is people think intelligent, reasonable debate works on attention whores.

Intelligent debate doesn't work on them, but sometimes we do have interesting discussions because of the troll's fertilizing the field for us. Manure may be smelly but you can grow good things with it.

I didn't think you meant "immediately" after the BB, so that's fine.

DNA exists now, in an oxygen-rich environment? Do we not exist? I'm answering you by saying that contrary to what you may have read, the early atmosphere - the pre-life atmosphere - had practically no free oxygen. A quote from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_earth): "The new atmosphere probably contained ammonia, methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, as well as smaller amounts of other gases. Any free oxygen would have been bound by hydrogen or minerals on the surface."

Oxygen only got into the atmosphere because of life.

even though the atmospheric oxygen (O sub2) would have been bound by hydrogen in the atmosphere because of the unusually high temperature, DNA still dies in the presence of oxygen and even oxygen present in water.

and, in our cells, dna exists in the nucleus and not in the surrounding air. all aerobic reactions conducted by the cell take place outside of the nucleus and are commanded by RNA.

Intelligent debate doesn't work on them, but sometimes we do have interesting discussions because of the troll's fertilizing the field for us. Manure may be smelly but you can grow good things with it.

yes, but trolls beget trolls.

Intelligent debate doesn't work on them, but sometimes we do have interesting discussions because of the troll's fertilizing the field for us. Manure may be smelly but you can grow good things with it.

Like potatoes. Mmmm. Fry 'em up.

Science isn't concerned about why. Only how. You want why? Look to religion.

I swear, TRA makes me think of something you did a whiles back...

Intelligent debate doesn't work on them, but sometimes we do have interesting discussions because of the troll's fertilizing the field for us. Manure may be smelly but you can grow good things with it.

yes, but trolls beget trolls.

i think the best trolling of all time came when jesussaves used an article from The Onion for argument. great stuff.

even though the atmospheric oxygen (O sub2) would have been bound by hydrogen in the atmosphere because of the unusually high temperature, DNA still dies in the presence of oxygen and even oxygen present in water.

and, in our cells, dna exists in the nucleus and not in the surrounding air. all aerobic reactions conducted by the cell take place outside of the nucleus and are commanded by RNA.

So, what's my DNA floating around in, motor oil? Are we not 70% or more water? How does DNA exist now, in the presence of all that hydrogen-bound oxygen? Sorry, but no. Free oxygen, absolutely, a nasty element, it'll combine with anything and rust the living daylights out of it. In combination, even with lowly hydrogen, its fangs are pulled.

yes, but trolls beget trolls.

i think the best trolling of all time came when jesussaves used an article from The Onion for argument. great stuff.

You've been here before? What was your previous incarnation?

yes, but trolls beget trolls.

i think the best trolling of all time came when jesussaves used an article from The Onion for argument. great stuff.

Your memory is longer than mine, then, I wasn't here in the days of Jesusssaves.

yes, but trolls beget trolls.

i think the best trolling of all time came when jesussaves used an article from The Onion for argument. great stuff.

What? Who were you back then?

thats an awfully quirky example, but thats beside the point.

all i am saying is there, of course, is a reason why the universe came to exist and that i dont believe that evolutionists or extreme right wing IDers like TRA or MTAE can explain this scientifically and flawlessly.

Evolutionists aren't trying to explain how life came into being by using Evolution, that's a strawman created by IDers and Creationists because they don't understand how Evolution works at all.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. There is no point in asking anyone to proove or disproove abiogenesis as a point for evolution. If you want answers like that, go read a philosopher.

You've been here before? What was your previous incarnation?

yeah, i was here... yeesh, like 2 years ago. it was another NS name that no one probably remembers. i got tired of it after a while.

look where i am now?

i read the article jesussaves posted, the one about Harry Potter teaching young girls to be satanic... still cant help laughing thinking about it

Impossible? I doubt it is. Unethical? You bet your butt it is. We value cattle for milk, horses for speed, and dogs for herding skill, so we breed them that way. However, we generally do not look at human beings as tools to be used. When we breed the dog as a herder, we don't ask it, "Do you want to be a herder when you grow up?" We don't care. We train the dog to a purpose. Do we really want to reduce human beings to that level - bred and trained for a given purpose, whether they like it or not?

This is a strawman, Dawkins is not advocating humans to be bred to become tools, rather humans to be bred to have better tools for themselves. There is no reason to assume that eugenics necessarily imbues a purpose on the person, that would still be a matter of the person's preferences. Instead, eugenics could open up avenues of self-determination that may have been entirely shut by nature.

Dawkins specifically drew a comparison between the morality of genetically molding a child to be a better musician and forcing a child to take music lessons. Is it less moral to give the child the tools to become a good musician or to sternly encourage the child to pursue the tools to be a good musician? In the end, we cannot escape the responsibility that a parent has for sculpting their child's future, and why would eugenics be less morally viable than other routes?

If, despite selective breeding, a dog that is not a good herder is born, it is generally given away as a pet (or just abandoned, but I'm not going to condone that). Do we really want a society in which children who don't have the particular talents they were bred for (or simply don't want to use them) are cast aside?

Non-sequitor. Simply because we can breed deficiencies out of children, we are not automatically justified in tossing unwanted children aside. The moral allowance for abandoning dogs has nothing to do with their breeding, and everything to do with their moral insignificance in relation to humans.

It is acceptable to train runners and high jumpers but not to breed them because those who enter these events choose to do so. We can "force" music lessons on children for the same reason we "force" any lessons - for the purposes of education. We cannot, however, expect that the children enjoy music or that they

And forcing music education is different from providing a innate talent for music in what way? Why is forcing any behavior in children morally different than creating innate talents?

even though the atmospheric oxygen (O sub2) would have been bound by hydrogen in the atmosphere because of the unusually high temperature, DNA still dies in the presence of oxygen and even oxygen present in water.

and, in our cells, dna exists in the nucleus and not in the surrounding air. all aerobic reactions conducted by the cell take place outside of the nucleus and are commanded by RNA.

Bacteria have DNA and no nucleus.

http://i11.tinypic.com/2evrvoj.jpg

Most of them do fine in an oxygen-rich environment.

Actually micro evolution has been witnessed literally thousands of times. I witnessed it yesterday in the lab. Bacteria are constantly evolving. They are great examples for studying evolution as you ca grow billions of them in a flask and their generation time can be measured in hours rather than years. It removes the sexual reproduction angle but you can certainly examine mutation as a driver. Experiments have been performed starting with a single cell and ending up with several distinct populations.. in fact it has been shown that under specific conditions the evolution of these cells will in fact follow very similar paths.

Macro evolution has also been witnessed in labs all around the world. It is a little different for bacteria though as the species definition is not as clear for bacteria as it is for eukaryotes (us and plant and animal friends).

Macro and even micro evolution is a little more difficult to witness in eukaryotes given the extra time it takes for each new generation and the greatly limited numbers of individuals. That being said there are examples of micro evolution witnessed all the time, from pests evolving resistance to pesticides to selective breeding programs.

Macro evolution examples are hardest of all to find but there are some pretty compelling examples.. from species of Raven that can breed with their relatives further to the south.. who in turn can breed with their relatives further to the south forming a continuous chain. The Ravens at the Northern end of the chain however are unable to breed with the ravens at the southern end of the chain.. forming 2 distinct species.. but with no line of delineation between the 2. Even Horses and Donkeys being able to breed (all be it by giving birth to sterile offspring) is not a bad example.

But even ignoring all that getting back to Mr Trolls initial post .. I agree with Nazz I believe what Dawkins was saying was that we need to have a debate on the ethics of eugenics that is not tainted by the Nazi regime. Eugenics is going to be something that is more and more on the public agenda as the technology becomes more and more accessible. If we don't have some form of productive debate its gonna hit us when we are completely unprepared for the consequences.

Bacteria have DNA and no nucleus.

http://i11.tinypic.com/2evrvoj.jpg

Most of them do fine in an oxygen-rich environment.

see, this is exactly what confuses me. science tells us that oxygen and DNA dont mix, but then single celled organisms come along and throw that right to hell.

and i do understand what evolution is. all i was asking was for your take on the beginning of the universe.

Dawkins specifically drew a comparison between the morality of genetically molding a child to be a better musician and forcing a child to take music lessons. Is it less moral to give the child the tools to become a good musician or to sternly encourage the child to pursue the tools to be a good musician? In the end, we cannot escape the responsibility that a parent has for sculpting their child's future, and why would eugenics be less morally viable than other routes?


I'd say they are both wrong, personally. A person's interests should be determined by themselves, not by some attempt to shape them at birth for whatever ends the parents see desirable. I see that as equally wrong as forcing them to take lessons; it's the parents forcing their own selfish desires on their children rather than allowing them to be themselves.

And, of course, there's the wonderfully ironic possibility that a kid genetically engineered to be great at music would end up hating it anyways.

It never ceases to amaze me, how people actually think a constructive debate with MTAE/TRA is possible.

I have had one with MTAE, I have seen him in some, and I actually think it is easier to form one with him than some of the liberal clique on here that run around screaming troll when he shows up.

dawkins is as much a fundamentalist as any of the religious types he lambasts. he is not representative of the majority of the atheist or agnostic community. that is all.

It's true:

NSG loooooves its trolls :D

I have had one with MTAE, I have seen him in some, and I actually think it is easier to form one with him than some of the liberal clique on here that run around screaming troll when he shows up.

Even on topics as absurd as his creations, like ex congressman/pedophile Mark Foley being the greatest civil rights activist since Rosa Parks?

Richard Dawkins has made more converts to Intelligent Design than any of their "scientists" with his militant dogmatism and attempt to evangelize people to atheism using his own religious interpretation of science. Really, I think the guy damages science a lot more than he helps it.

The guy knows a fuck of a lot of evolutionary biology, and he would've been better off if he had stuck to it and avoided all this goofy crusading stuff.

He's a brilliant scientist though.

Anyway, the ID crowd - at least the people behind it, not the sheeple like true believers - are into this for political gain and not because they are incensed by Dawkins pointing out that god didn't create the earth in six minutes or whatever.

It could just as easily have been something else with some other atheist.

see, this is exactly what confuses me. science tells us that oxygen and DNA dont mix, but then single celled organisms come along and throw that right to hell.

and i do understand what evolution is. all i was asking was for your take on the beginning of the universe.

How does that throw it right to hell? Ever hear of antioxidants? They're molecules that police up free radicals that would damage DNA. If life evolved in an anaerobic environment and oxygen slowly built up some of those cells which produced antioxidants would be able to survive.

This thread goes a very long way towards proving Dawkins right.

I read through this entire, horrible thread and saw one post seeking to discuss eugenics and I responded to it. Way to go NSG.

dawkins is as much a fundamentalist as any of the religious types he lambasts. he is not representative of the majority of the atheist or agnostic community. that is all.

QFT.

I honestly believe that extremism is not the product of any ideology or religion or belief, but rather it's the product of a disturbed individual latching on to whatever ideology fits their particular mental problems.

He's a brilliant scientist though.

Oh, absolutely. Anyone who's read his work on evolutionary biology could tell; it manages to be both in-depth and understandable in layman's terms. I don't fault him for that by any stretch; when it comes to evolution, he's a modern day T.H. Huxley.

Even on topics as absurd as his creations, like ex congressman/pedophile Mark Foley being the greatest civil rights activist since Rosa Parks?

I consider that one MTAE's most brilliant creation. None of his later work has quite come up to the level of Mark Foley = Rosa Parks.

And, of course, there's the wonderfully ironic possibility that a kid genetically engineered to be great at music would end up hating it anyways.

Exactly why eugenics gets a bad rap.

Not only is it difficult to assign humans a value that undermines the morality of eugenics, but there is furthermore no necessary allotment of purpose that goes along with eugenics.

I'd say they are both wrong, personally. A person's interests should be determined by themselves, not by some attempt to shape them at birth for whatever ends the parents see desirable. I see that as equally wrong as forcing them to take lessons; it's the parents forcing their own selfish desires on their children rather than allowing them to be themselves.

And, of course, there's the wonderfully ironic possibility that a kid genetically engineered to be great at music would end up hating it anyways.

The only way eugenics could be right, would be if all abilities were upgraded and left for the child to choose to use or not. Anything else would be, like you say forcing desires on the child.

The only way eugenics could be right, would be if all abilities were upgraded and left for the child to choose to use or not. Anything else would be, like you say forcing desires on the child.

That's true. I support genetic engineering to cure diseases, but I would only support enhancing their talents if they were free to choose which one they pursued by being given improvements in as many abilities as possible.

All of which said, eugenics has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is scientific fact. Eugenics is a pretty generally discredited political philospohy.


saying that evolution = eugenics would be like claiming christianity = the crusades

Anyone who equates eugenics with the Nazis knows nothing about the subject.

Hey. Long time reader, first time poster. When reading this thread, I happened to recall an article I read a while ago... See if you find it of in interest.

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

Exactly why eugenics gets a bad rap.

Not only is it difficult to assign humans a value that undermines the morality of eugenics, but there is furthermore no necessary allotment of purpose that goes along with eugenics.

That's true. However, I think it's one of those things that really needs to be looked at before we automatically push it under the rug; if eugenics can eliminate genetic diseases in a way that avoids nature's methods of doing it (death, usually painful), I think that it would be morally right to do so.

However, any kind of genetic engineering technique should be used to enhance health, not for some kind of petty desire to play God and shape your kids according to your own self-centered vision of what they should be.

Even on topics as absurd as his creations, like ex congressman/pedophile Mark Foley being the greatest civil rights activist since Rosa Parks?

I didn't actually see that one.

I hold the opinion that people dumb enough to not believe in evolution will eventually become extinct BECAUSE OF evolution.

However, any kind of genetic engineering technique should be used to enhance health, not for some kind of petty desire to play God and shape your kids according to your own self-centered vision of what they should be.

Why do we think that all children who are not raised and shaped according to someone's vision of what they should be as destitute?

Any child who is bounced from parent to parent or is not run through some institutional education is considered to be disadvantaged. It is the very nature of parenthood and schooling to play God and shape the children, yet we do it before they are born and we are evil? I'm not buying it.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

:p :p :p
no oh my you are so wrong. you need to read Darwin, in origin of the specie, he states that it was just a theory on that in being a theory it could be wrong, i know its hard to believe but he went to the Galapagos in order to try and understand a small part of how God made the world and.
you cant blame Darwin for the fact that people are using his work to promote ideas that are way out of the main stream

I hold the opinion that people dumb enough to not believe in evolution will eventually become extinct BECAUSE OF evolution.

Too bad disease resistence is the foremost evolutionary factor in modern society, and not intelligence.

Why do we think that all children who are not raised and shaped according to someone's vision of what they should be as destitute?

I don't know.

Any child who is bounced from parent to parent or is not run through some institutional education is considered to be disadvantaged. It is the very nature of parenthood and schooling to play God and shape the children, yet we do it before they are born and we are evil? I'm not buying it.

Well, the problem is that the children have no ability to change their genetic code; they're born that way, and it just seems wrong to force them to be something that they have no control over. I mean, what if a kid is genetically engineered to be a great musician, but ends up loving math or business instead? What kind of effects would that have on their relationship with their parents, who paid to engineer that kid with the intent that he'd be a great musician.

It just seems to give parents too much power of their children, and it gives the parents even more power over their kids to make them in what they want them to be, rather than what's best for the children.

Too bad disease resistence is the foremost evolutionary factor in modern society, and not intelligence.

At the rate we're going, extreme right-wing Bible thumpers will eventually believe that Jesus didn't believe in medicine.

Then our gene pool is on the road to become healthier.

no oh my you are so wrong. you need to read Darwin, in origin of the specie, he states that it was just a theory on that in being a theory it could be wrong, i know its hard to believe but he went to the Galapagos in order to try and understand a small part of how God made the world and. you cant blame Darwin for the fact that people are using his work to promote ideas that are way out of the main stream

I can just imagine Darwin saying right now "What the fuck are these guys doing with my theory? Why didn't I write on the first page that EVOLUTION AND GOD ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE OR CONTRADICTORY".

Oh, random places, I don't remember... but what I meant was that I haven't found any cold, hard evidence that can't be refuted

The other theories haven't any evidence AT ALL.

At the rate we're going, extreme right-wing Bible thumpers will eventually believe that Jesus didn't believe in medicine.

Then our gene pool is on the road to become healthier.


You don't think that's already been popular. It was big in the 80's (think Jim Henson) and a bunch of people died because they wouldn't see a doctor et al. It continued until parents started going to jail for letting their kids die.

At the rate we're going, extreme right-wing Bible thumpers will eventually believe that Jesus didn't believe in medicine.

Then our gene pool is on the road to become healthier.

We already have some of those, there's a story of one of their kids dying while they prayed about once a year.

The trouble is, in the past, stupidity got you killed because of all the dangers around. Now, with civilization, that's not the case. The police and fire departments protect stupid people, schools give them just enough education to get by, and automobiles are so safe now that they can't kill themselves on the road, either (not enough to wipe them out of the gene pool, anyway). On top of that, they breed like crazy, so there are more of them all the time.

And just because ID and creationism appeal to a supreme being, doesn't mean they're unscientific.

Uh, yes it does. Do you have any understanding of science whatsoever?

Uh, yes it does. Do you have any understanding of science whatsoever?
If they did, would they have said what they said?

At the rate we're going, extreme right-wing Bible thumpers will eventually believe that Jesus didn't believe in medicine.

Then our gene pool is on the road to become healthier.

...wow... just... wow...

how sad that people actually think that's true...

At the rate we're going, extreme right-wing Bible thumpers will eventually believe that Jesus didn't believe in medicine.

Then our gene pool is on the road to become healthier.

My cousin is an EMT and he had to let a Jehovah's Witness die because he refused a blood transfusion. I think I got the details right.

My cousin is an EMT and he had to let a Jehovah's Witness die because he refused a blood transfusion. I think I got the details right.

Yes, the JW's do not think it's right to accept someone else's blood, even at the expense of their lives.

Theory is above hypothesis.
Hypothesis=idea.
Theory=idea with incomplete evidence.

Got it? Good. No more "it's just a thoery" "no it's fact" arguments.

It's an idea with some supporting evidence but we don't have a record of every living thing that ever was so the evidence is incomplete.



ya thats why is called the theory of relativity...oh wait those are facts (general and special relativity). :upyours:

God damn
Artards (http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8767/leaveim5.gif)

We already have some of those, there's a story of one of their kids dying while they prayed about once a year.

The trouble is, in the past, stupidity got you killed because of all the dangers around. Now, with civilization, that's not the case. The police and fire departments protect stupid people, schools give them just enough education to get by, and automobiles are so safe now that they can't kill themselves on the road, either (not enough to wipe them out of the gene pool, anyway). On top of that, they breed like crazy, so there are more of them all the time.

Correct.

The world would just be so much better if we made people pass an IQ test to vote. That's the start of REAL change.

I'm in the [American] Public Education system right now. I can fully say that the problem isn't funding or the teachers. It's that they're weighed down by people who just want to show up and expect an easy ride if they don't try. If we started kicking people like that out then it would go a long ways, too...

My cousin is an EMT and he had to let a Jehovah's Witness die because he refused a blood transfusion. I think I got the details right.

Yeah, that actually happens alot - or at least I've heard of it several times in my area alone.

...wow... just... wow...

how sad that people actually think that's true...

I'd offer to make a bet on the subject, but evolution doesn't happen overnight...

Puppet troll baitist blah blah blah, etc etc...

Horrible trollism. Go back to trollschool.

My cousin is an EMT and he had to let a Jehovah's Witness die because he refused a blood transfusion. I think I got the details right.

I have heard of such things.

Well, the problem is that the children have no ability to change their genetic code; they're born that way, and it just seems wrong to force them to be something that they have no control over. I mean, what if a kid is genetically engineered to be a great musician, but ends up loving math or business instead? What kind of effects would that have on their relationship with their parents, who paid to engineer that kid with the intent that he'd be a great musician.

I see no difference between this and natural predilections in children.

It just seems to give parents too much power of their children, and it gives the parents even more power over their kids to make them in what they want them to be, rather than what's best for the children.

I agree that parents who unduely mold their children, especially when it goes against the child's will, are immoral, but you seem to be suggesting that these children had a will before they existed.

How is a child who was born with great musical talent made less happy by being born with great musical talent, even if he does not enjoy music? Even if he was engineered to enjoy music, how is he less happy when he follows a career in music? How is a child who is born with a natural talent in music any different than a child with an engineered talent in music?

ya thats why is called the theory of relativity...oh wait thats a fact. :upyours:

No, it's not a "fact".

It's supported by observational and mathematical evidence, but it is not a fact; the whole concept of scientific "laws" is badly outdated due to the constant stream of new ideas and evidence that has arisen in the past century. It is entirely possible, maybe even likely, that a new theory may come along that improves upon or replaces the Theory of Relativity, but currently that is the best explanation we have based upon the evidence for what is going on.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

Dear Puppet of MTAE, your posts are worse under this name. Further, your reading comprehension skills are lacking as this man does not represent the body of evolutionary biologists. Evolution caused the holocaust? Gee, I thought it was a meglomaniacal fool hellbent on world domination, but don't let me confuse facts with your warped ideological bent. You are a troll of the worst kind. BURN THE TROLL!!!!!!!

Correct.

The world would just be so much better if we made people pass an IQ test to vote. That's the start of REAL change.

IQ tests are hardly an accurate measure of someone's intelligence.

Yes, the JW's do not think it's right to accept someone else's blood, even at the expense of their lives.

Yes, damn those JW's for living what they see as a faithful life :p

IQ tests are hardly an accurate measure of someone's intelligence.

True. I'd settle for a test on the facts behind current events.

Correct.

The world would just be so much better if we made people pass an IQ test to vote. That's the start of REAL change.

I'm in the [American] Public Education system right now. I can fully say that the problem isn't funding or the teachers. It's that they're weighed down by people who just want to show up and expect an easy ride if they don't try. If we started kicking people like that out then it would go a long ways, too...

*snip*

Uhm ... you haven't gotten to the civil rights movement in the 1960's, have you? That's not the way to go, restricting voting rights based on an intelligence test. And anyway, it's illegal now.

As for the people expecting a free ride, yes, there are those, there always have been, always will be. They were there in my day, they'll be there in your kids' day. The best thing to do is to get the best education you can and to teach your kids to be even smarter than you are. Even though it's true that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the America people, they're not as stupid as they seem. The trouble is, politicians talk down to us, Hollywood talks down to us, religious leaders talk down to us, after a while people just zone out. I haven't given up yet, though.

[QUOTE=Kinda Sensible people;12009339]

The facts supporting evolution:
1. DNA exists - But the explanation given by evolution has thousands of holes in it. First of all, DNA ceases to exist in a Oxygen-rich environment, exactly what the earth was after the big bang. The theory that DNA exists because amino acid chains created it is extreme abiogenises.


please tell me that is joke, because if is not, you need to get castrated and never have children.

I see no difference between this and natural predilections in children.

The difference is that the other is not intentional; what I'm talking about is parents really grooming their kid to be a musician or whatever and then finding out that he or she really doesn't like music. It would probably cause all kinds of problems, especially since there's that whole disappointment angle that comes along with it that would be even worse than parents forcing their kids to take music.



I agree that parents who unduely mold their children, especially when it goes against the child's will, are immoral, but you seem to be suggesting that these children had a will before they existed.

How is a child who was born with great musical talent made less happy by being born with great musical talent, even if he does not enjoy music? Even if he was engineered to enjoy music, how is he less happy when he follows a career in music? How is a child who is born with a natural talent in music any different than a child with an engineered talent in music?

My concern isn't that, it's that the kid won't have the free choice to develop their talents; I think a person who was given talent in music so that they could freely pursue their art and be able to develop their own innovative style would be very happy. However, a child engineered to be good at music and then forced to do it even if they're not interested out of parental pressure would be unhappy, especially with the knowledge that their parents made them good at music with the purpose of fulfilling some unknown desire.

Although I could also see a real problem with "natural" talents versus artificial ones; it could create a pretty disturbing dichotomy between the naturally talented people and those engineered to be so.

The difference is that the other is not intentional; what I'm talking about is parents really grooming their kid to be a musician or whatever and then finding out that he or she really doesn't like music. It would probably cause all kinds of problems, especially since there's that whole disappointment angle that comes along with it that would be even worse than parents forcing their kids to take music.

The only problems I see come from the pressure the parents put on the child, not from the geneticist modifying the genes.

My concern isn't that, it's that the kid won't have the free choice to develop their talents; I think a person who was given talent in music so that they could freely pursue their art and be able to develop their own innovative style would be very happy. However, a child engineered to be good at music and then forced to do it even if they're not interested out of parental pressure would be unhappy, especially with the knowledge that their parents made them good at music with the purpose of fulfilling some unknown desire.

See above.

Although I could also see a real problem with "natural" talents versus artificial ones; it could create a pretty disturbing dichotomy between the naturally talented people and those engineered to be so.

That dichotomy is created by a society obsessed with stratification, and if eugenics fights against that, good for it.

The only problems I see come from the pressure the parents put on the child, not from the geneticist modifying the genes.

Exactly. I'm not worried about the geneticists doing it, but the parents who decide what will be done. But that's also a risk, albeit one that is like the risk for any medical procedure.

That dichotomy is created by a society obsessed with stratification, and if eugenics fights against that, good for it.

I'm concerned that this will just create another level of stratification and keep the one that we sought to eliminate in place unchanged.

Not to mention it would create an economic gap, with the rich developing "superkids" that not only have money behind them but genetic advantages over poorer kids whose parents couldn't afford the treatments. It begins to really erode merit from the system even more than it currently is, and that is not a good path to take.

Uhm ... you haven't gotten to the civil rights movement in the 1960's, have you? That's not the way to go, restricting voting rights based on an intelligence test. And anyway, it's illegal now.

Besides, IQ is no judge of intelligence. You can have an astronomical IQ and still not know fucking shit about what you are voting on or not give a fuck. Make everyone take a knowledge test on the issues/candidates being voted on.

Exactly. I'm not worried about the geneticists doing it, but the parents who decide what will be done. But that's also a risk, albeit one that is like the risk for any medical procedure.

I'm concerned that this will just create another level of stratification and keep the one that we sought to eliminate in place unchanged.

Not to mention it would create an economic gap, with the rich developing "superkids" that not only have money behind them but genetic advantages over poorer kids whose parents couldn't afford the treatments. It begins to really erode merit from the system even more than it currently is, and that is not a good path to take.

These are all potential problems, but all of them are not problems with eugenics, but problems with society that would pervade into eugenics. If eugenics actually became common in society it is revolutionary enough to possibly remedy some of these problems.

These are all potential problems, but all of them are not problems with eugenics, but problems with society that would pervade into eugenics. If eugenics actually became common in society it is revolutionary enough to possibly remedy some of these problems.

Well, then you run in to a chicken-egg problem. The negative effects of eugenics come from society, yet the only way to stop those effects is by introducing eugenics.

Obviously, it's an issue that would have to be introduced gradually and under strict supervision in order to prevent problems.

Well, then you run in to a chicken-egg problem. The negative effects of eugenics come from society, yet the only way to stop those effects is by introducing eugenics.

I wouldn't say that it is the only way, or even an actual way. I'm just saying that eugenics isn't the problem, and it may even be the answer.

Obviously, it's an issue that would have to be introduced gradually and under strict supervision in order to prevent problems.

Certainly, and it begins by eliminating the moral stigma that Hitler placed on it in the 60 years ago.

Exactly why we shouldn't be deflecting arguments away from comments like Dawkins's, but should be taking them head on. That is why I said "Way to go NSG". This is an issue that needed to be addressed, but almost everyone addressed this by crying troll, saying Dawkins is an extreme atheist, or saying that Dawkins doesn't actually approve of eugenics.

Someone asked earlier, how was the universe created?

Here's my answer:

15 billion years ago (or 13 billion - I see both values used) G-d created the Universe in an event known to science as the Big Bang. Previously, he had written the laws of science to govern the universe.
About 4.6 billion years ago, the Earth came into being. This was a case of planetary formation, which comes about as a result of both conditions in the universe and the laws of science, both of which were created by G-d.
Then, G-d cheated a little. Life could have arisen very quickly, or it could have taken eons to do so. G-d rigged chance so that life arose quickly, and He had written the laws of biology to produce intelligent life.

As for eugenics, I have serious problems with it. We need to discuss it, of course, but I do not believe it should be done. Not just for Holocaust-related reasons (knowing Hitler, the eugenics stuff may have just been an attempt to justify his campaign of hate). Here is another reason why we should not do eugenics - what if we make a mistake? What if we breed for a trait that turns out to be a disadvantage? We have made mistakes with animal bloodlines, what if we screw up our own bloodline?

We should breed to get diseases out, but not to get strong children.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.
OH NOEZ, trying to improve the quality of the human race? How horribly atrocious!
It's ridiculous to use eugenics to get a 'strong' population, and it's obviously morally abhorrent to kill disabled people without consent. Some form of eugenics to remove severe hereditary illness is still a good idea, though.

We should breed to get diseases out, but not to get strong children.

What have you got against strong children? Do they intimidate you?

What have you got against strong children? Do they intimidate you?

Actually, I agree with him.
Go ahead and ensure nobody has a genetic disease. That'd be great. But don't make certain people naturally better off then others, because that throws all kinds of problems at not only the kid, but society in general too. (Dunno if you could do anything much more specific then generally stronger or generally smarter, genes are kind of hard to get specific results from)

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

According to the ideas of natural selection, it would be pointless to try to select for an ideal human because nature will already do so. Any human intervention would only hinder the ceaseless improvement of probability.

According to the ideas of natural selection, it would be pointless to try to select for an ideal human because nature will already do so. Any human intervention would only hinder the ceaseless improvement of probability.Not nature, the environment. Human's create their own environments nowadays, and certain aspects of natural selection have been rendered obsolete through plastic surgery.

So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

Philosophy???

Philosophy???

Idiots like that can't call it a science--that would legitimize it in their eyes.

Someone asked earlier, how was the universe created?

Here's my answer:

15 billion years ago (or 13 billion - I see both values used) G-d created the Universe in an event known to science as the Big Bang. Previously, he had written the laws of science to govern the universe.
About 4.6 billion years ago, the Earth came into being. This was a case of planetary formation, which comes about as a result of both conditions in the universe and the laws of science, both of which were created by G-d.
Then, G-d cheated a little. Life could have arisen very quickly, or it could have taken eons to do so. G-d rigged chance so that life arose quickly, and He had written the laws of biology to produce intelligent life.

I have but one question: where did god come from to create this? He always existed? Why couldn't the point of infinity have always existed with a timer to explode without a god?

As for eugenics, I have serious problems with it. We need to discuss it, of course, but I do not believe it should be done. Not just for Holocaust-related reasons (knowing Hitler, the eugenics stuff may have just been an attempt to justify his campaign of hate). Here is another reason why we should not do eugenics - what if we make a mistake? What if we breed for a trait that turns out to be a disadvantage? We have made mistakes with animal bloodlines, what if we screw up our own bloodline?

I would be interesting to breed humans though, because as it is, we are not evolving any more while in this 'advanced state'. If we wished to become something more, this would be nessecary. Its not a horrible idea, if the subjects were willing, why not?

So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

Many problems here:
1) you're biased.
2) Evolution is not a philosophy, sorry, its a [truuue] theory.
3) holocaust was unrelated. Its like saying learning German is bad because Hitler spoke German.
4) Athiests aren't bad, in general they're the ones trying to stop the wars, reduce poverty, reduce global warmings, make donations, and increase civil rights. Youtube search for like 'athiests aren't all bad' for a list of famous athiests like Rosa Parks.

Not nature, the environment. Human's create their own environments nowadays, and certain aspects of natural selection have been rendered obsolete through plastic surgery.

Well, yes, thats what I said. :D

[QUOTE=Kinda Sensible people;12009339]

The facts supporting evolution:
1. DNA exists - But the explanation given by evolution has thousands of holes in it. First of all, DNA ceases to exist in a Oxygen-rich environment, exactly what the earth was after the big bang. The theory that DNA exists because amino acid chains created it is extreme abiogenises.

Actually the earth was an anerobic enviornment until early bacteria that excreted oxygen as a waste product 'polluted' their enviornment with oxygen which was a poison to them and led to the evolution of aerobic bacteria that could have a much more active metabolism by using oxygen.

you know what i found while having several angered debates with some stuck up religious types at my high school, no matter what evidence i bring up, they find a way to make it seem like god did it to trick non-believers into think there was no one god.

you cant prove or argue anything with these people, though it sure is fun to make them seem foolish.

[QUOTE=Christmahanikwanzikah;12009385]

Actually the earth was an anerobic enviornment until early bacteria that excreted oxygen as a waste product 'polluted' their enviornment with oxygen which was a poison to them and led to the evolution of aerobic bacteria that could have a much more active metabolism by using oxygen.



which took million if not billions of years.

Lots of popcorn for this one. *munches*

I agree.

*grabs a can of root beer*

I agree.

*grabs a can of root beer*

*smack* You're not allowed to bring refreshments after the 3rd page! Wait until the 20th page for the intermission. By then, there'll be plenty of spam to go around.

Not to mention it would create an economic gap, with the rich developing "superkids" that not only have money behind them but genetic advantages over poorer kids whose parents couldn't afford the treatments. It begins to really erode merit from the system even more than it currently is, and that is not a good path to take.
Er, the status quo is that complete losers can inherit societal rewards from their parents even if they lack talent, gifts, or the ability (much less willingness) to contribute to society. You suggest that a proposed change might result in the super-rich improving the skills and talents and therefore capacity of their children to contribute, and claim this risks an erosion of merit in the system...?:confused:

The only sense that makes is nonsense.

I would be interesting to breed humans though, because as it is, we are not evolving any more while in this 'advanced state'. If we wished to become something more, this would be nessecary. Its not a horrible idea, if the subjects were willing, why not?
So far as I can tell, we continue to evolve. Looks to me like every single generation of humans in a given 'population' differs in the frequency of heritable alleles from the generation before.

you know what i found while having several angered debates with some stuck up religious types at my high school, no matter what evidence i bring up, they find a way to make it seem like god did it to trick non-believers into think there was no one god.

you cant prove or argue anything with these people, though it sure is fun to make them seem foolish.
Actually they are clearly right. What would be more logical and likely to be true than an all loving merciful God who wants you to believe and be saved (so much so that he gave up his only begotten son), going out of his way to trick people into not believing so they can not be saved and instead be hurled into the eternal torment of Hell's fires?

It's all so logical I'm surprised that the plan to trick people into not believing doesnt fail just because it is so darn obvious. :p

We should breed to get diseases out, but not to get strong children.

I'm not entirely sure we should "breed to get diseases out," either, or at least I don't believe it's that simple. Who decides which diseases should be "bred out" and which may be permitted to exist?

[QUOTE=Athenys Pallas;12010935]



which took million if not billions of years.

Yep. According to the fossil records, the period when life existed solely in it's most primitive forms was well over a billion years.

Things just didn't happen very fast back then. Sexual reproduction and energetic predation sped up the processes considerably.

I'm not entirely sure we should "breed to get diseases out," either, or at least I don't believe it's that simple. Who decides which diseases should be "bred out" and which may be permitted to exist?

Pardon my ignorance, but why would we allow -any- diseases to exist?

Pardon my ignorance, but why would we allow -any- diseases to exist?

Because there's actually some evidence that fighting off disease in childhood results in superior immune systems in adulthood - "That which does not kill me makes me stronger."

It's not quite that simple, of course, but a number of doctors are pointing to our unwillingness to allow kids to so much as catch a cold as a reason why allergies and asthma are becoming so prevalent.

Because there's actually some evidence that fighting off disease in childhood results in superior immune systems in adulthood - "That which does not kill me makes me stronger."

It's not quite that simple, of course, but a number of doctors are pointing to our unwillingness to allow kids to so much as catch a cold as a reason why allergies and asthma are becoming so prevalent.

Well diseases are different from colds. Any kind of borne-in viral infection or allergy, you could do away with while keeping the kid's immune system normal and ready to fight off colds and the like.

Or we could just genetically engineer kids with insane immune systems from birth, and make this all really easy.

Pardon my ignorance, but why would we allow -any- diseases to exist?

Several reasons. First, some "diseases" really don't significantly negatively impact one's quality of life - near-sightedness is an easy example. Is it really worthwhile to try an eliminate such trivial malfunctions?

Second, even some diseases which can or do negatively impact quality of life come bundled with "good" traits. For example, I have bipolar II disorder, which has a strong genetic component. Bipolar disorder and intelligence (particularly creative intelligence) seem in some way to be linked - whether one is cause and one effect, or whether they're both effects of some additional cause is unknown, but the link has been noted time and again. Is it worth culling our population of geniuses in order to rid ourselves of a disorder that can unquestionably ruin lives? Who can decide that?

And, third, it's worth asking who's doing the "allowing." People with genetic disorders already obviously have the option not to breed. If they choose not to take that option, is it anyone's place to second-guess or even disallow that choice?

Several reasons. First, some "diseases" really don't significantly negatively impact one's quality of life - near-sightedness is an easy example. Is it really worthwhile to try an eliminate such trivial malfunctions?

Second, even some diseases which can or do negatively impact quality of life come bundled with "good" traits. For example, I have bipolar II disorder, which has a strong genetic component. Bipolar disorder and intelligence (particularly creative intelligence) seem in some way to be linked - whether one is cause and one effect, or whether they're both effects of some additional cause is unknown, but the link has been noted time and again. Is it worth culling our population of geniuses in order to rid ourselves of a disorder that can unquestionably ruin lives? Who can decide that?

And, third, it's worth asking who's doing the "allowing." People with genetic disorders already obviously have the option not to breed. If they choose not to take that option, is it anyone's place to second-guess or even disallow that choice?

Nearsightedness could be taken out. I see no point in leaving it in.

Bipolar disorder could also be taken out - you can be just as creative without it, likewise that it's not a guarantee you'll be creative with it. Breaking someone's legs might give them an incredible amount of life experience and perspective, thereby increasing their potential and overall enjoyment of life - but I'm not going to break my son's legs.

Just because a disability has bonuses doesn't mean it's any less of a disability.


In a completely unrelated note: Gattaca was a good movie.

Bipolar disorder could also be taken out - you can be just as creative without it, likewise that it's not a guarantee you'll be creative with it. Breaking someone's legs might give them an incredible amount of life experience and perspective, thereby increasing their potential and overall enjoyment of life - but I'm not going to break my son's legs.

I'm not sure you understood my point. Given that there exists a correlation of some type (not a guarantee, as you point out, but nonetheless a strong correlation) between creative intelligence and bipolar disorder, eliminating bipolar disorder would fairly certainly reduce the number of people in the general population with that sort of intelligence. This is hardly an effective way to improve the overall "quality" of the human race. The question becomes "Is the sort of creative intelligence displayed by bipolar people more good than bipolar disorder is bad?" - which seems like an awfully hard call to make. (And, honestly, as a bipolar person, I don't really like the idea of being told I'm not good enough as I am to have deserved to be born, nor indeed the idea of being told that I might not be fit to breed. Presumably you can understand why I might feel that way.)

Nearsightedness could be taken out. I see no point in leaving it in.

Bipolar disorder could also be taken out - you can be just as creative without it, likewise that it's not a guarantee you'll be creative with it. Breaking someone's legs might give them an incredible amount of life experience and perspective, thereby increasing their potential and overall enjoyment of life - but I'm not going to break my son's legs.

Just because a disability has bonuses doesn't mean it's any less of a disability.


In a completely unrelated note: Gattaca was a good movie.
If you are talking eugenics, then that refers to preventing lives. That means that for the 'crime' of being shortsighted, such people would be prevented from breeding, or (as per Gattica) any potential offspring that might be shortsighted would be eliminated prior to birth or at birth. I know plenty of short-sighted people the world is a better place for having.

Even if you are only meaning gene manipulation, it's still (in my opinion) somewhat 'off' to suggest that people who are bi-polar are not 'good enough' to exist as they do. It's not at all true that people with bi-polar who enjoy enhanced intelligent and/or creativity would necessarily have these same gifts if their genes were manipulated to prevent the condition. The condition is based in neuro-functioning, in essence their brains and brain functioning would be altered. It should be clear that alterations of the brain could potentially result in decreased of disadvantageously altered brain function.

It's worth noting that bi-polar II in particular is not necessarily all that debilitating. Some bi-polar II people actually find that rather than mild mania being inherently debilitating, the real problem is the attitudes and actions of people who are not bi-polar.

Why not eliminate people who suffer from the prejudice that in many cases is the source of disabling effects? Why is it ok to suggest 'those people are not fit to live as they are' when those people enjoy a high quality of life that is only really lessoned by the actions of the so-called 'well'. Would it be ok to suggest that you ought not to have been born and allowed to exist as you are because you have undesirable traits such as a desire to prevent the existence of people such as Poliwanacraca?

If your suggestion were to be effected, Poliwanacraca either wouldnt exist, or wouldnt exist as she is, which in effect is the same thing. That you'd advocate as much seems to me, at best, no lesser problem than the often mild (and not inherently problematic) effects experianced by many as a result of being characterised by bi-polar II.

Again, it's still a disability. If the kid grows up and gets pissed off at me for not fixing his bipolar disorder, what am I to do? It's not like we can ask them beforehand.

And like I said, having depreciating effects during your lifetime will alter your view of things and can even make you more intelligent - that doesn't mean I'll willfully do any of these things to any of my children.

I'm not saying Polly is a bad person because of his/her bipolar disorder, but that's because Polly's a person. Unborn children are concepts - moreso when you're able to shape the type of person they become at birth. I'd prefer my kids not to have bipolar disorder - I'm sorry, but it's just true. No negativity towards Polly, but you must understand that I would rather spend the extra time trying to cultivate my child's creativity normally rather than take the (D&D nerdism) Bipolar feat (+2 Wis, -2 Cha) which brings both positives and negatives into account.

Again, it's still a disability. If the kid grows up and gets pissed off at me for not fixing his bipolar disorder, what am I to do? It's not like we can ask them beforehand.

And like I said, having depreciating effects during your lifetime will alter your view of things and can even make you more intelligent - that doesn't mean I'll willfully do any of these things to any of my children.

I'm not saying Polly is a bad person because of his/her bipolar disorder, but that's because Polly's a person. Unborn children are concepts - moreso when you're able to shape the type of person they become at birth. I'd prefer my kids not to have bipolar disorder - I'm sorry, but it's just true. No negativity towards Polly, but you must understand that I would rather spend the extra time trying to cultivate my child's creativity normally rather than take the (D&D nerdism) Bipolar feat (+2 Wis, -2 Cha) which brings both positives and negatives into account.

Here's the thing - any child I ever conceive would have a pretty good chance of having bipolar disorder (or one of the related mental disorders). If I were to have, say, four or five children, the odds of at least one of them having bipolar disorder become extremely high. The only way I could definitely prevent another bipolar person from coming into the world would be not to breed; the only way you or anyone else could definitely prevent me from bringing another bipolar person into the world would be preventing me from breeding. I'm far from all bad genetically: I've got rather an insanely high IQ, I'm fairly healthy in other ways - heck, my family doesn't even have much of a history of disease. The odds are very good that my hypothetical children would be extremely bright. I happen to believe that the world could use more extremely bright people. So would it be better for me not to reproduce, thus probably sparing at least some of my hypothetical children the problems of bipolar disorder, or better for me to reproduce, thus almost certainly adding more intelligent people to the world? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that I am the only one with any right to make that decision for me. To eliminate bipolar from the world, one would either have to get every bipolar person and every bipolar carrier to agree not to produce bipolar children, or one would have to force them not to produce said children whether they like it or not. Given the rather obvious impossibility of the former, I really don't like the idea of attempting to eradicate such disorders.

(Of course, in all this discussion of my specific example of bipolar disorder, we haven't touched on other disorders with positive effects. Another example - carriers for sickle-cell anemia have higher resistance to malaria. Weeding out sickle-cell genes could very easily lead to increased malaria fatalities. And, of course, there's all the positive effects we don't even know about yet! It is entirely possible that (to make up a fictitious example) the genes that code for near-sightedness also happen to create greatly increased resistance to the "Qwerty" virus, which hasn't come into existance yet but which will decimate the world's population in 50 years. We can't know. What we can know is that genetic diversity, while not necessarily great for all the "diverse" individuals, is the best way to maintain the health and survival of a species.)

Oh, and I do not have -2 Cha! I'm quite likeable, I'll have you know! ;)

Again, it's still a disability.
Again, many people who actually experiance and so are in a position to know to what (if any) degree being pi-bolar is disabling, actually indicate that bi-polar is not inherently disabling, rather it is the attitude of other people that is disabling. It doesnt make a lot of sense to suggest it is something other than the source of disablement that is the disability.

If the kid grows up and gets pissed off at me for not fixing his bipolar disorder, what am I to do? It's not like we can ask them beforehand.
Exactly, we cannot ask them, once we permently alter their brains, we've completely removed their choice, this is assuming bi-polar is done away with through alteration rather then elimination of the people themselves.
If the alteration were known to reduce brain function and effect intelligence and creativity, then is it really up to you to decide your child is better off less intelligent and less creative? What's to say they wont be pissed at you for that as much or more than they would be pissed at you for not altering their brain?
Bi-polar is treatable. I do not know of any medication that will increase intelligence and creativity as reliably as bi-polar medications treat the symptoms of bi-polar disorder. If you alter their brain, your child has no choice, if you leave them as they are, they have the option of taking medication or choosing the symptoms of bi-polar. I'd be more pissed if my parents permently changed my brain, reduced my intellect and creativity irreversibly, than if they left me to choose for myself whether or not to deal with the treatable symptoms or to have them treated.

And like I said, having depreciating effects during your lifetime will alter your view of things and can even make you more intelligent - that doesn't mean I'll willfully do any of these things to any of my children.
We are not talking about willfully inflicting your child with something, rather we are talking about not willfully inflicting them with your and society's predetermined, and perhaps even biggoted standards.

I'm not saying Polly is a bad person because of his/her bipolar disorder, but that's because Polly's a person. Unborn children are concepts - moreso when you're able to shape the type of person they become at birth. I'd prefer my kids not to have bipolar disorder - I'm sorry, but it's just true. No negativity towards Polly, but you must understand that I would rather spend the extra time trying to cultivate my child's creativity normally rather than take the (D&D nerdism) Bipolar feat (+2 Wis, -2 Cha) which brings both positives and negatives into account.
I'm not saying your a bad person, but I'd rather treat society's bigotry and prejudice than inflict unborn children with it.

As for the minus 2 charm (I presume) that really just shows that you dont understand bi-polar at all. It seems a bit much that someone utterly uneducated about the matter would permently alter (and potentially damange) their children's brains simply to meet their uneducated standards. A lot of bi-polar people are more charming as a result of bi-polar, mild mania often takes the form of increased happiness, increased sociability, general gregariousness, and a propensity to be more outgoing...hardly a recipe for -2 cha.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

ahhh.

i see your using the 'reductio ad Hitlerum' argument

Somehwere, TRA sees this 15 page thread and faps with renewed vigour. I hope you're all happy.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.
That's just insanity. We all know that Evilution is really a tool of the homosexual communist abortion doctors who want to brainwash children into hating Christmas, apple pie, and the flat tax.

Several reasons. First, some "diseases" really don't significantly negatively impact one's quality of life - near-sightedness is an easy example. Is it really worthwhile to try an eliminate such trivial malfunctions?


That, my friend, would be a problem I could live without. As soon as the doctors tell me my eyes are formed sufficiently, it's lasik for me.

Somehwere, TRA sees this 15 page thread and faps with renewed vigour. I hope you're all happy.
I dont give a toss about TRA. I post in threads where there is discussion that interests me. There is discussion that interests me in this thread. Until this post which is in reply to you, I have not once mentioned TRA, nor have I directly addressed TRA in any way. Frankly I dont care if TRA faps with renewed vigour just because people happen to be able to have a constructive and interesting discussion that completely ignores TRA in a thread that TRA started. Since you apparently do care, it is mystery why you would be posting in here simply to imply people ought not post in here.

If I bother to consider the matter at all (and frankly if you hadnt popped in to draw attention to TRA, I wouldnt have bothered), I would think TRA is more likely to get her or his rocks off from direct attention than from people have a discussion that completely ignores TRA even if the discussion arose as a result of TRA's comments.

It's odd that you seem to think people having a discussion amongst themselves without making a single reference to TRA encourages TRA as much as people coming into threads to make posts about TRA. If you really believe that attention fuels TRA and unlike me you actually care about TRA in some way, then it's a mystery why you would go out of your way to give TRA the attention you perceive TRA wants by making TRA the 'star' of your post.

It seems to me that having people discuss around me, but not bothering to engage me or even appear to notice me, would be very frustrating if I were an attention whore (as you appear to think TRA is), where-as having people create posts for no purpose other than to comment about me and my attention seeking would be giving me exactly what I would want.

It's perverse that the very people who according to their comments want TRA ignored and marginalised, are the just about the only ones going out of their way not only to not ignore and marginalise TRA, but instead to constantly call attention to TRA.:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Kinda Sensible people;12009339]



8. The earth has existed for (can't remember the number, so we'll go with shit-tons) of years. - The idea that the earth has existed for billions of years doesnt prove evolution and doesnt disprove ID. sorry. same goes for #9

Number 8 and 9 are required as the evoloution hypothesis requires very large time periods, i.e. not the few thousand of years indicated by the bible.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

Godwinned on the first post. Good Job.

Keep up the good work and in a few months when you're finally banned we'll take more than a few days to forget you like we do the lamer trolls.

Not nature, the environment. Human's create their own environments nowadays, and certain aspects of natural selection have been rendered obsolete through plastic surgery.

I disagree. Fitness is measured through the number of reproductively viable offspring produced. If someone is butt ugly with a butt ugly spouse and they have 14 children they are more fit evolutionarily than a healthier pair of people who have used plastic surgery.

Also, ugliness isn't always inherited even when ugly parents get together. For example, my parents are really ugly and I'm not exactally horrible to behold. Contrasting, I have a really ugly friend whose parents aren't ugly at all. And he has a really good looking girlfriend.

So I don't think plastic surgery has really upset the situation that much.

I disagree. Fitness is measured through the number of reproductively viable offspring produced. If someone is butt ugly with a butt ugly spouse and they have 14 children they are more fit evolutionarily than a healthier pair of people who have used plastic surgery.

Also, ugliness isn't always inherited even when ugly parents get together. For example, my parents are really ugly and I'm not exactally horrible to behold. Contrasting, I have a really ugly friend whose parents aren't ugly at all. And he has a really good looking girlfriend.

So I don't think plastic surgery has really upset the situation that much.
I'd say that a far bigger change in human reproductive patterns has arrisen from our increased ability to travel. After all, for most of human history a person could expect to live essentially their entire life within a very small geographical region. These days, a lot of human beings routinely travel thousands of miles merely for pleasure, to say nothing of those who travel for education or business or whathaveyou. That upsets a lot of our mating behaviors, since we effectively increase our pool of potential mates by a huge amount.

The other thing to remember is that for the majority of human history we had an extremely limited ability to control our own reproduction. Hell, humans didn't even figure out that sex leads to pregnancy for quite a while! Contraceptive options have been around for a very long time, but the effectiveness and availability of those options in the modern "Westernized" world is beyond anything humanity has seen before.

Countless studies have established that the majority of people don't WANT to have as many babies as they are physically capable of producing. When people are informed and able to access contraception, most of them choose to use it. That's a whole new kind of "selective pressure" for our species to deal with!

And, of course, we also have introduced the radical notion that human females should have the right to decline being pregnant. Most of the history of human civilization includes systems which have been specifically designed to remove reproductive freedom and choices from 51% of the human population, which artificially influences a lot of the "selection" that can occur. If you restore reproductive freedom to that population, you're going to see a pretty interesting shift in the selective process.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html
So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

you know hitler was very religious. when he was younger he went around germany singing with choir groups.

So Evolution, one of the philosophies that supported the horrors of the halocaust, finally reveals itself for what it truly is: a justification for Atheist atrocities.

Ok, time to feed the troll.

HALOcaust, uh? Why not DOOMcaust? Or DUKENUKEMcaust?

Yea, I once saw Charles Darwin wearing a hakenkreuz up his sleeve. And he founded the Nazi party and wrote "Mein Kampf", and "Das Kapital" also.
Oh, I forgot, he was a zionist jew also. And also a muslim terrorist. And a papist to boot.

...:rolleyes:

However, I do doubt the evolution: if RTA is human, looks like humans didn't evolve a lot in the last millennia.

Yea, I once saw Charles Darwin wearing a hakenkreuz up his sleeve. And he founded the Nazi party and wrote "Mein Kampf", and "Das Kapital" also.
Oh, I forgot, he was a zionist jew also. And also a muslim terrorist. And a papist to boot.

...:rolleyes:

Freemason. Get your conspiracy theory correct...

I'd say that a far bigger change in human reproductive patterns has arrisen from our increased ability to travel. After all, for most of human history a person could expect to live essentially their entire life within a very small geographical region. These days, a lot of human beings routinely travel thousands of miles merely for pleasure, to say nothing of those who travel for education or business or whathaveyou. That upsets a lot of our mating behaviors, since we effectively increase our pool of potential mates by a huge amount.

The other thing to remember is that for the majority of human history we had an extremely limited ability to control our own reproduction. Hell, humans didn't even figure out that sex leads to pregnancy for quite a while! Contraceptive options have been around for a very long time, but the effectiveness and availability of those options in the modern "Westernized" world is beyond anything humanity has seen before.

Countless studies have established that the majority of people don't WANT to have as many babies as they are physically capable of producing. When people are informed and able to access contraception, most of them choose to use it. That's a whole new kind of "selective pressure" for our species to deal with!

And, of course, we also have introduced the radical notion that human females should have the right to decline being pregnant. Most of the history of human civilization includes systems which have been specifically designed to remove reproductive freedom and choices from 51% of the human population, which artificially influences a lot of the "selection" that can occur. If you restore reproductive freedom to that population, you're going to see a pretty interesting shift in the selective process.

pffff
:rolleyes: feminist



joking

Freemason. Get your conspiracy theory correct...

How's with Darwing being a freemason-communist-nazi jew who wanted the Martians to instaurate a muslim caliphate under Pope Benedict XV ?

How's with Darwing being a freemason-communist-nazi jew who wanted the Martians to instaurate a muslim caliphate under Pope Benedict XV ?

You never studied, did you? Shall I begin with how the first Queen Elizabeth relates to the Trilateral Commission?

According to the ideas of natural selection, it would be pointless to try to select for an ideal human because nature will already do so. Any human intervention would only hinder the ceaseless improvement of probability.

Nature doesn't select for ideals. Nature jury-rigs species to survive. Look at humans. We've still got an appendix. No use for it, but there it is anyway. Male testicles like to operate at a cooler temperature than the rest of the body. Instead of evolution making them work well at high temperature, it drops them into a dangling sack that is easy to injure. Natural selection can come up with some brilliant solutions, but it can work just fine with solutions that aren't ideal but confer a slight advantage.

Nature doesn't select for ideals. Nature jury-rigs species to survive. Look at humans. We've still got an appendix. No use for it, but there it is anyway. Male testicles like to operate at a cooler temperature than the rest of the body. Instead of evolution making them work well at high temperature, it drops them into a dangling sack that is easy to injure. Natural selection can come up with some brilliant solutions, but it can work just fine with solutions that aren't ideal but confer a slight advantage.

Why advantage does an a appendix give, besides a really expensive sick day?

Why advantage does an a appendix give, besides a really expensive sick day?

That's my point. If natural selection created ideal creatures we'd have lost the appendix when it stopped being useful. Instead, every change that made us human was just jury rigged onto the remaining remnants of our ancestor species.

That's my point. If natural selection created ideal creatures we'd have lost the appendix when it stopped being useful. Instead, every change that made us human was just jury rigged onto the remaining remnants of our ancestor species.

we ar ein the process of losing it. evolution works slowly on mammils.

we ar ein the process of losing it. evolution works slowly on mammils.
Actually, evolution has produced more change in mammalian species in less time than has been the case for many other species.

For instance, in the time that it has taken for the very first mammals to appear, differentiate, and evolve into the modern species we see today (including humans), the crocodile has remained essentially unchanged.

Actually, evolution has produced more change in mammalian species in less time than has been the case for many other species.

For instance, in the time that it has taken for the very first mammals to appear, differentiate, and evolve into the modern species we see today (including humans), the crocodile has remained essentially unchanged.

Yes, but that's because the Crocodile is nearly perfectly suited to it's environment. Any mutation is a negative to survival and is deselected.

Evolution happens due to a combination of mutation and environmental (or other) pressures. Since the Crocodile isn't under any pressure (save from man, and not even that in most places anymore) the selection criteria is simply for more of the same.

The big accelerants to evolution were sexual reproduction (which improves the possibility of mutated genetics spreading through a population) and positive care for newborns (which of course increases chances of a mutant gene surviving to breeding age). Mammals do well on the latter, but we aren't the only ones (notably, Crocodiles are very good mothers).

Yes, but that's because the Crocodile is nearly perfectly suited to it's environment. Any mutation is a negative to survival and is deselected.

Evolution happens due to a combination of mutation and environmental (or other) pressures. Since the Crocodile isn't under any pressure (save from man, and not even that in most places anymore) the selection criteria is simply for more of the same.

The big accelerants to evolution were sexual reproduction (which improves the possibility of mutated genetics spreading through a population) and positive care for newborns (which of course increases chances of a mutant gene surviving to breeding age). Mammals do well on the latter, but we aren't the only ones (notably, Crocodiles are very good mothers).

Exactly and if God had wanted us to fly he would have given us......

Aeroplanes, no wait he bloody well did didn't he. Ahh the glory of God!:D

You're giving him/her too much credit. MTAE/TRA is just an attention whore posting sensationalist troll threads one after another. What amazes me is people think intelligent, reasonable debate works on attention whores.

Everyone appears to think MeansToAnEnd and The Redemption Army are the same person.... am I the only person who's noticed that MTAE appears to support eugenics where RA opposes it? (As an old-timer I can't exactly bring myself to call him TRA.) And MTAE also tends to stay around for longer than, oh, one post to maintain his argument. Furthermore, MTAE seems to genuinely hold the beliefs he does whereas RA appears to be attempting to discredit actual fundamentalist Christians, at least from what I've seen him posting (and the responces of actual Christians in his threads).

That, and moderation implications in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=508974), have led me to conclude that MTAE and RA are not the same person. If anything RA seems to be a re-incarnation of Commando3 or Corneliu.