It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Darwins “deal breakers,” The evolution of evolution.

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Its time we laid out the problems with Darwinism, admitted their existence, look at the alternatives, and especially, the rebuttals to these alternatives.

Let’s start with a problem Darwin anticipated, of it he said:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." On the Origin of species.

150 years ago Darwin’s peers didn’t know much of the cell. To them it was a rather simple thing. In fact, is has been only the last 50 years that our knowledge of the cell has exploded. We now know that each cell contains plethora of very complex machines performing specific tasks within each cell. This brings us to the topic of “irreducible complexity” introduce by Michel Behe in “Darwins Black Box.” For those who are not familiar with the idea, allow me to elaborate on the concept.

Basically, when we discovered these machines we found they have multiple parts all of which are needed to make the machine functional, this is illustrated commonly with the “bacterial flagella motor.” (BFM) which is a motor that propels bacteria through liquid. it requires 40 specific parts, built in the correct sequential order to function. it is a 2 speed water cooled motor, with a rotor, drive shaft, ‘U joint”, propeller etc. it only requires a quarter turn to stop and reverse its spin in the other direction at 100,000 RPM it is the “most efficient machine in the universe.”

I wont bore you with the “mouse trap” illustration for irreducible complexity. But lets just say that the motor would not function if it were missing just one of its 40 parts.

Here is the problem:

Darwin made clear that Natural Selection can only succeed if changes provide some advantage to the evolving organism in its struggle for survival.
What if (using the BFM as an example) a bacteria developed a tail and even the components to attach it to the cell wall, but without the motor assembly it lays motionless providing no advantage and therefore invisible to natural selection which can only, by definition, favor changes that aid in its survival.

Natural selection can only select FOR a natural advantage, in most cases it actually eliminates things with no function or functions that harm it.
The only way you can select FOR a BFM is if it works, and that means it has all of its 40 parts present and working. Natural selection can not get you the BFM, it can only work after its there and operating.

Basically, the question is, how do you build this (or any other) such system “gradually” when there is no function until all those parts are in place.

After this theory was published it was attacked by mainstream science as “unscientific” and “religiously motivated” because of the fairly obvious implications.

The theory to explain theses systems came to know as “Co-option”
Which is basically the idea that Natural Selection was able to borrow components from an already reducibly complex machine and build a new machine with some of its components. It was said that Behe underestimated the power of Natural selection.
This was strengthened by the fact that 10 parts of the BFM are being used in another machine or function.
There are two critical problems with Co-option. The first being that there are in fact 40 parts to a BFM, 30 of which are completely unique, sooner or later you have to account for every part as it originally having another purpose.

And secondly and what is never even addressed by the opponents of the IC argument is that even if you, for some reason. Conceded that all the parts were already present you still have the problem of the complex “assembly instructions” and where they came from.

Studies of the BFM have revealed not only that it requires specific parts but also a precise sequence of assembly as per not wasting energy building a machine that does not work. This problem leads us into the second deal breaker, and the one that is the most loathsome to opponents of Intelligent design, it is the origin of information.

How did the Life appear in the first place?
Darwins “On the Origin of Species” is silent on the matter.

In 1969 Dean Kenyen co-wrote the best selling textbook used for 20 years called Biochemical Predestination. This trying to explain the origins of proteins, which form shapes and interlock with one another to do all the jobs in the cell (except for storing information)
The Idea was that amino acids (which are what proteins are made out of) were attracted to one another by their chemical makeup noting more. He later retracted after having realized that it didn’t explain how the very first proteins could have assembled without the help of genetic instructions. He was faced with two choices.

Explain where the genetic assembly instructions came from or explain how proteins could have arisen directly from amino acids without DNA in the “primordial ocean”
He could do neither. He now thinks there was an intelligent cause for life and seeks the origin of DNA itself.

The BIG problem is:
By definition Natural selection could not have existed before the existence of the first living cell. For it can only act upon organisms capable of reproducing themselves, cells equipped with DNA that pass on their genetic changes to future generations.
Or to say it another way.
Without DNA there can be no self replication, but without self replication there can be no natural selection.

We know that there is no natural cause that produces information.
In our experience the only thing capable of doing this is intelligence.
However evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause even before the evidence has had a chance to speak. That is not very scientific IMO.

I attained much of the information for this post from a new movie entitled “Intelligent design Unlocking the mysteries of life.” In fact, in some places I took lines from the movie and posted them verbatim here. You can view it here video.google.com...




[edit on 18-7-2007 by Amenti]

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Amenti]




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I would like to see the believers in Darwins book to say so up front, I DARE YOU to say to all ATS'rs that you believe that only Whites are the favored Race and all otehrs are less evolved.

HELL I DOUBLE DARE YOU!!!

What you all didn't know your Jesus, Darwin, said that? Well maybe theTITLE would give it away which only proves you haven't read the book but are parrotting the things youv'e heard.

So let me be the first to say outloud, DARWIN WAS WRONG, whites are not MORE evolved than blacks and we can not therefore KILL or ENSLAVE them, I await anxiously to hear anyone of you say the opposite...



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
As a side note. I personally think that science will indeed concede intelligent design soon.
People who paid good money for their degrees are getting tired of people like me being able to challenge them. I think that they will choose the only logical alternative that doesn’t involve God. I.E. that extraterrestrials seeded DNA in the primordial sea or even that they just genetically modified man ala Sitchin (sitchiniswrong.com...) this will fit hand and glove with the New world orders agenda for us.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
You don't hear many scientists subscribing to Darwinism anymore. The study of evolution has moved on a great deal since Fitzroy and Darwin set sail toward Tierra Del Fuego, you know.

With the advent of complexity theory, a whole new light is being shed on evolution. Although incomplete, it has the promise of getting rid of many of the darwinian anomalies: www.panspermia.org...

Here's a sample:

What's the difference between the process of evolution in a computer and the process of evolution outside the computer? The entities that are being evolved are made of different stuff, but the process is identical.... These abstract computer processes make it possible to pose and answer questions about evolution that are not answerable if all one has to work with is the fossil record and fruit flies.


And here is a Q&A session with Stuart Kaufman, one of the leading lights of complexity theory: chronicle.com...

And if you are really interested here is a fascinating paper on complexity and evolution, for which this is the abstract:


To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. We investigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase.

From:www.pnas.org...

The conclusions are fascinating, or horrifying, depending on your preconceptions.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Karilla]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Well, you seem to have difficulty separating abiogenesis from evolution.

Your favour omnipotent magic man could have created the first organism, and evoltion could still be true. Abiogenesis focuses on the formation of the first reproducing lifeforms.

As for Flagella, unless you're playing place the god in the gap, I would, perhaps, think twice about such an approach.


Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006 Oct;4(10):784-90. Epub 2006 Sep 5. Related Articles, Links


From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella.

Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ.

Division of Immunity & Infection, Medical School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK. m.pallen@bham.ac.uk

In the recent Dover trial, and elsewhere, the 'Intelligent Design' movement has championed the bacterial flagellum as an irreducibly complex system that, it is claimed, could not have evolved through natural selection. Here we explore the arguments in favour of viewing bacterial flagella as evolved, rather than designed, entities. We dismiss the need for any great conceptual leaps in creating a model of flagellar evolution and speculate as to how an experimental programme focused on this topic might look.


Science has a good history of removing such gap-hugging magic men.

As for IJs diatribe above, there was virtual institutional racism in victorian times, so it is not surprising that Darwin was just as guilty as the rest.

Yes, Darwin was wrong about race and so were most people in those days. Does that make any difference? I think the fact he was wrong about parts of his scientific theory would be more important to this thread.

HE WAS WRONG ABOUT MECHANISMS OF HEREDITY, as well.

But he was right about evolution by natural selection.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


As for Flagella, unless you're playing place the god in the gap, I would, perhaps, think twice about such an approach.


Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006 Oct;4(10):784-90. Epub 2006 Sep 5. Related Articles, Links


From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella.

Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ.

Division of Immunity & Infection, Medical School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT UK. m.pallen@bham.ac.uk

In the recent Dover trial, and elsewhere, the 'Intelligent Design' movement has championed the bacterial flagellum as an irreducibly complex system that, it is claimed, could not have evolved through natural selection. Here we explore the arguments in favour of viewing bacterial flagella as evolved, rather than designed, entities. We dismiss the need for any great conceptual leaps in creating a model of flagellar evolution and speculate as to how an experimental programme focused on this topic might look.


What are you suggesting exactly as a rebuttal to my post? what are the arguments? it doesnt say in your source, have i already covered them here? are they new?



[edit on 18-7-2007 by Amenti]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
If you are interested in the details, this may provide an insight.

www.pandasthumb.org...

There have been a few papers on the evolution of flagella recently, and some discussion and conflict between them. Looks like science is doing its job without recourse to telic-gap-stuffing.

ABE: here's the actual paper if you're interested

home.planet.nl...

[edit on 18-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
It appears that if Pallen and Matzke's methods are valid then only 2% of the flagellars 42 parts are unique and exclusive. If this is indeed the case I apologize for spreading half truth.
I would submit that the problems associated with it are still very much at play.
over and over in the link it seems to deamonize ID for making the BFM its "flagship" when It might as well be any of the cellular machines. and we would have to start all over. I can see how this argument is effective at buying some more time but the two basic problems are still very much deal breakers. we still have unaccounted for building blocks no matter the machine. an no clue where the instructions to build them in sequence came from. We still have no explanation for information, this cant be overlooked
I will continue to research it and thanks for the link.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Amenti]

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Amenti]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
No problem, Amenti.

Honestly, you don't need the ID arguments for your position, christianity/religion and evolution can co-exist. Not my thing though, but it needn't be one or t'other.

ABE: All ID 'theory' is doing is picking areas that have minimal knowledge and saying 'you can't explain X'. Not a very satisfying argument really.

So far blood clotting and flagella are being shown to not be an issue for evolution. IC systems themselves can evolve, it was actually predicted a long time back.


thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors
Muller, 1918, p.463-464
www.genetics.org...

[edit on 18-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Well thanks to melatonin. I have been researching this for a number of hours now and have come to some tentative conclusions. The first is that the number of parts of the BFM and the number of the parts that it shares with other cellular systems (homology) has been modified since 2003 (the documentary date) instead of only 10 out of 40 , its more like less than 10% of flagellar proteins have no known homology. Also it seems that the claim of the BFM’s irreducible complexity is being debated because it will still work if some parts are not functioning or missing, however this seems to be a contested thing because of the different types of BFM’s and different definitions of irreducible complexity. but to be sure there is a Irreducible complex design we just debate the definition. There are plenty of critiques of the methods of attaining this information and lots of name calling etc. which is a shame because it doesn’t appear to change a single thing. Like I said in the initial post:


Originally posted by Amenti

And secondly and what is never even addressed by the opponents of the IC argument is that even if you, for some reason. Conceded that all the parts were already present you still have the problem of the complex “assembly instructions” and where they came from.

Studies of the BFM have revealed not only that it requires specific parts but also a precise sequence of assembly as per not wasting energy building a machine that does not work. This problem leads us into the second deal breaker, and the one that is the most loathsome to opponents of Intelligent design, it is the origin of information.

How did the Life appear in the first place?
Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” is silent on the matter.


and I know it was said regarding this last point that I should be separating abiogenesis from evolution. I assume that it was meant that I shouldn’t speculate about the origin of genetic information when talking Darwinism. The problem is that there is no reason to talk of Darwinism if there can be no beginning to natural selection without cell division which requires DNA


Originally posted by Amenti
The BIG problem is:
By definition Natural selection could not have existed before the existence of the first living cell. For it can only act upon organisms capable of reproducing themselves, cells equipped with DNA that pass on their genetic changes to future generations.
Or to say it another way.
Without DNA there can be no self replication, but without self replication there can be no natural selection.




With regards to the flagellum, there is dispute as to whether many flagellar genes can even be said to be homologous to genes outside of the flagellum. This dispute is witnessed in the conclusion of pro-ID biologist Mike Gene who writes when critiquing Nick Matzke’s model attempting to evolve a flagellum: “The various dissimilarities (some very profound) listed above, along with the weakness of the criteria for inferring homology, is only rendered more problematic by the seemingly arbitrary nature of the chosen matches.” Matzke’s model may be found at www.talkdesign.org... Mike Gene’s critique may be found at www.idthink.net... Obviously there are different types of flagella, but Matzke admits that least ¼ of flagellar proteins have no known homology, and also acknowledges that “the flagellar research community has scarcely begun to consider how these systems have evolved.” See Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke, "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella," Nature Reviews Microbiology, AOP, published online 5 September 2006; doi:10.1038/nrmicro1493



[edit on 19-7-2007 by Amenti]

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Amenti]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
The problem is that there have been many mass extinction events in this planet's history. Many of the intermediate steps in the evolution of organisms, even the relatively simple ones such as the flagella being discussed, are missing and will never be found. The fossil record for larger organisms is incomplete because of the relatively rare circumstances that allow fossilisation. This is why I think computer models of evolution hold the key to major progress in ending this debate.

The fact is that life has been found everywhere on this planet, even thriving in springs that have bubbled up through volcanic rock and are nothing more than slightly dilute sulphuric acid. We are even finding organisms that do not require any energy from the sun to live. To me personally, this smacks of a universal impetus toward filling every available niche with self-replicating, mutable life. I believe that this is the result of a condition that has existed since the universe came into being. This does not rule out a creator, but in my opinion all that creator could have done is set things in motion with certain boundaries.

There is a model for the evolution of the planet that is getting more complete year on year, there are the beginnings of a model for evolving life using simple instructions that I believe will one day be complete (see my above links on Complexity Theory).

In short I believe that life is an inevitable consequence of the initial condition of the universe, and not some exotic, miraculous adjunct to it.

My biggest issue with Intelligent Design as a concept is that for there to be an intelligent designer, surely there must have been a super-intelligent designer that created Him, and an ultra-super-intelligent designer before Her, and on and on ad infintum. If God created Man then who created God, surely a vastly more difficult feat?

Personally, I subscribe to the Taoist version of creation, which conveniently enough ties in perfectly with everything science has so far discovered. It also ties in with the idea of a God, but not one that had any hand in creating man, and certainly not one that is intelligent, as we understand the term, but inevitable. In the beginning was the one (Tao). The one gave rise to two (Yin and Yang, the two primaeval forces) and the two gave rise to the myriad things.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla

My biggest issue with Intelligent Design as a concept is that for there to be an intelligent designer, surely there must have been a super-intelligent designer that created Him, and an ultra-super-intelligent designer before Her, and on and on ad infintum. If God created Man then who created God, surely a vastly more difficult feat?


One of the main things I.D. is saying is that, in our scientific experience, the only thing that can produce information is intelligence. Therefore it should not be artificially ruled out as a cause. and that the evidence is more and more pointing to unexplainable information. and so we defer to the most probable (in our experience) cause. Yes it has metephyisical implications. They do not name a creator nor do I see any scientific reason to assume that there must be a creator of a creator. but I would be interested in the reasoning.

However, If, as I postulate in my second post here that extralterrestrial beings ever claim they were in effect our creator I would like very much to ask them who their creator was, and a host of questions concerning such paradoxes because I have a Chertoffian "gut feeing" that their explanations will leave us at square one, and the questions posed in this thread will still have no answers. yet we will at that point not care as much after all they would tell us we didnt have to believe in God and science would embrace them for it.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Amenti]

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Amenti]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatoninAs for IJs diatribe above, there was virtual institutional racism in victorian times, so it is not surprising that Darwin was just as guilty as the rest.


Oh so we will keep the THEORY about why others that whites are inferior we just won't SAY OUTLOUD they are... OR we will pretend he didn't say it... OR we still think it but won't say it..

Intereting you call mine a diatribe, when mine was factual and actual, The theory of evolution from it's inception has taught whites are superior but all you cowards won't admit your RACISTS.

The Columbine killers wrote in a letter about that Black stufdent they shot...
"He doesn't deserve the jaw EVOLUTION gave him", but that's okay that had nothing to do with Darwin's theory, RIGHT?

Evoluton is used to this very day to give excuses for harming, maiming, discriminating and every other thing man can think to do to each otehr, but its BEST if e don't TALK ABOUT THAT..

As I figured, lots of excuses, lot's of people believing in Evolution. and lots of racist to coward to say they think they are SUPERIOR to BLACK, JEWS, AND OTHERS..

I made my point, and thatnks for all of you WHO PROVED IT!!!


EDIT - Do you nderstand waht hitler was doing according to his own writing? He stated that if he could wipe the jews, Blacks, Asians, and Gypsies out he could speed up EVOLUTION. Hitler surmised that with those races in the gene pool they were slowing the evolution of the Aryan races. But that's OK right, it has only cost inmeasureable LIVES in it's name but thats ok. It is still being used by many groups as a reason others are inferior but thats OK. IT IS NOT OK, AND PEOPLE MUST WAKE UP!!!

[edit on 7/19/2007 by theindependentjournal]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Sorry for keeping this OT digression going Amanti...

IJ, Darwin was just another Victorian dude, racism was wdiespread, from the church dudes to science dudes. Agassiz was a fervent creationist, but proposed defining humans into different species. I don't think that is sufficient cause to denigrate creationism, the actual facts against will do.

At least Darwin was opposed to slavery.

As for the Columbine stuff, yeah twisted people use all sorts of reasons for their wrongdoings, I heard that some woman placed a baby in the road leaving it for the christian fantasy dude satan. Others murder for god. There is also some unstable christian dude threatening lecturers in Colorado...

None of that really means much apart from these people are quite mentally unstable.

You need to find a less pathetic argument against ToE. I'm sure you can find one at least half as bad.

ABE: yeah, if you say so, Hitler also used christian writings to vilify the Jews. Read up on "Limpieza de sangre", racism has a long history.

I think we can apply Godwin's law now.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amenti
However, If, as I postulate in my second post here that extralterrestrial beings ever claim they were in effect our creator I would like very much to ask them who their creator was, and a host of questions concerning such paradoxes because I have a Chertoffian "gut feeing" that their explanations will leave us at square one, and the questions posed in this thread will still have no answers. yet we will at that point not care as much after all they would tell us we didnt have to believe in God and science would embrace them for it.


Sorry, just let me make sure I understand you correctly. If God spoke to you and told you that he was your creator, would you not ask him who his creator was? Or would you just take his word for it? What would the substantive difference be if extraterrestrials said the same thing?



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla
Sorry, just let me make sure I understand you correctly. If God spoke to you and told you that he was your creator, would you not ask him who his creator was? Or would you just take his word for it? What would the substantive difference be if extraterrestrials said the same thing?


Matter can not be created nor destroyed, but we know that initially it did in fact appear out of nothing. (or something similar) That would require something very special. Extraterrestrials would presumably be in effect just like us, accept "more advanced" in technology. So in the scenario I am thinking of there would still be a huge difference in the medical genetic modification via advanced technology and putting the big bang in motion.



[edit on 19-7-2007 by Amenti]

[edit on 19-7-2007 by Amenti]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
I think we can apply Godwin's law now.


I want you to know I got a great long laugh out of that.


Originally posted by Amenti
Matter can not be created nor destroyed, but we know that initially it did in fact appear out of nothing.


Nowhere in the current Big Bang model does it say matter and energy arose from nothing. It's a common misconception and I have no idea why. The pre-expansion universe had all of the matter and energy that today's universe has, only compressed into an incomprehensibly small object of near infinite mass. Our current understanding of physics is insufficient to describe this scenario as the laws we know did not exist back then, and we have not yet even reconciled quantum physics with gravity let alone figured out the workings of the (Grand) Unified Force, which was what we speculate presided over the early universe just as the four fundamental forces rule our universe today.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Originally posted by melatoninAs for IJs diatribe above, there was virtual institutional racism in victorian times, so it is not surprising that Darwin was just as guilty as the rest.


Oh so we will keep the THEORY about why others that whites are inferior we just won't SAY OUTLOUD they are... OR we will pretend he didn't say it... OR we still think it but won't say it..

Intereting you call mine a diatribe, when mine was factual and actual, The theory of evolution from it's inception has taught whites are superior but all you cowards won't admit your RACISTS.

The Columbine killers wrote in a letter about that Black stufdent they shot...
"He doesn't deserve the jaw EVOLUTION gave him", but that's okay that had nothing to do with Darwin's theory, RIGHT?

Evoluton is used to this very day to give excuses for harming, maiming, discriminating and every other thing man can think to do to each otehr, but its BEST if e don't TALK ABOUT THAT..

As I figured, lots of excuses, lot's of people believing in Evolution. and lots of racist to coward to say they think they are SUPERIOR to BLACK, JEWS, AND OTHERS..

I made my point, and thatnks for all of you WHO PROVED IT!!!


EDIT - Do you nderstand waht hitler was doing according to his own writing? He stated that if he could wipe the jews, Blacks, Asians, and Gypsies out he could speed up EVOLUTION. Hitler surmised that with those races in the gene pool they were slowing the evolution of the Aryan races. But that's OK right, it has only cost inmeasureable LIVES in it's name but thats ok. It is still being used by many groups as a reason others are inferior but thats OK. IT IS NOT OK, AND PEOPLE MUST WAKE UP!!!

[edit on 7/19/2007 by theindependentjournal]


Evolution is to blame for all the violence in the world today?? Huh? Sorry?? Ermmm...what about religon?? Let's see - we could start with Islamic Fundementalism, a little Christian Extremism, followed by a healthy dose of Jewish Orthodox militarism...that could account for a large percentage of the violence to begin with.

I just don't see why all these religeous extremists think that if they can debunk the Theory of Evolution, that that would somehow prove God's existence. You can't debunk evolution - because the evidence is overwhelming - and even if you could (heheh..fat chance) - it does NOT prove that any supernatural beings created all life and the universe. Not God, not Santa, not anyone....

J.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Originally posted by melatoninAs for IJs diatribe above, there was virtual institutional racism in victorian times, so it is not surprising that Darwin was just as guilty as the rest.


Oh so we will keep the THEORY about why others that whites are inferior we just won't SAY OUTLOUD they are... OR we will pretend he didn't say it... OR we still think it but won't say it..

Intereting you call mine a diatribe, when mine was factual and actual, The theory of evolution from it's inception has taught whites are superior but all you cowards won't admit your RACISTS.

The Columbine killers wrote in a letter about that Black stufdent they shot...
"He doesn't deserve the jaw EVOLUTION gave him", but that's okay that had nothing to do with Darwin's theory, RIGHT?

Evoluton is used to this very day to give excuses for harming, maiming, discriminating and every other thing man can think to do to each otehr, but its BEST if e don't TALK ABOUT THAT..

As I figured, lots of excuses, lot's of people believing in Evolution. and lots of racist to coward to say they think they are SUPERIOR to BLACK, JEWS, AND OTHERS..

I made my point, and thatnks for all of you WHO PROVED IT!!!


EDIT - Do you nderstand waht hitler was doing according to his own writing? He stated that if he could wipe the jews, Blacks, Asians, and Gypsies out he could speed up EVOLUTION. Hitler surmised that with those races in the gene pool they were slowing the evolution of the Aryan races. But that's OK right, it has only cost inmeasureable LIVES in it's name but thats ok. It is still being used by many groups as a reason others are inferior but thats OK. IT IS NOT OK, AND PEOPLE MUST WAKE UP!!!

[edit on 7/19/2007 by theindependentjournal]


Nobody is saying that your 'facts' aren't 'factual'....(if not factual, they're not facts...), our issue is with the conclusions you draw from them...

J.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   
TIJ is confusing Social Darwinism with the theory of evolution. I see a lot of that around here.

[edit to add] en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 19-7-2007 by MajorMalfunction]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join