The Long Terms Effects of Evolution...Take a Chance
Jabriol
> we scientists place LIMITS on the claims of
> science and on its scope. we dont cover love, beauty or truth because
> theyre not science. science is an aspect of humans exploring the
> world. you reject science so you simply dont understand its limits
Interesting,
many centuries ago it was the Church that set the limits...
who authorize science to do so today?
Matt Silberstein
You vile lying bigot, this is certainly not an issue of you supposed
problems with English, it is an issue that you can't or won't bother
to read and think. Science puts limits on science. Who else would you
suggest do that? OTOH, the Church, including the JW Church today,
attempts frequently to put limits on others.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.
Daniel Key
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<66e7ka$5...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>
> > we scientists place LIMITS on the claims of
> > science and on its scope. we dont cover love, beauty or truth because
> > theyre not science. science is an aspect of humans exploring the
> > world. you reject science so you simply dont understand its limits
>
> Interesting,
>
> many centuries ago it was the Church that set the limits...
>
>
> who authorize science to do so today?
>
>
There is a difference here, science is setting limits on itself (even if
they are incorrect ones), well as the church set limits on everything
(including science).
Raven
In article <66e7ka$5...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
> Interesting,
>
> many centuries ago it was the Church that set the limits...
>
>
> who authorize science to do so today?
Scientists.
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com
OR
cem...@sprintmail.com
Jabriol
> In article <66e7ka$5...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
> > Interesting,
> >
> > many centuries ago it was the Church that set the limits...
> >
> >
> > who authorize science to do so today?
>
> Scientists.
>
>
> ----------------------------
> Steve "Chris" Price
very Good.. so maybe science will help evolution like hitler did.
sound like a conspiracy to me.
Doug Berry
On 7 Dec 1997 19:44:44 -0000, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>very Good.. so maybe science will help evolution like hitler did.
>sound like a conspiracy to me.
Sorry, but with a population of about 2 billion in 1945, the 100
million or so killed in WWII aren't enough to affect evolution.
>
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Douglas E. Berry dbe...@nospam.hooked.net |
| http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/index.html |
| (remove "nospam" to reply by mail) |
|--------------------------------------------|
| "History is the vast and tangled web |
| of Conspiracy." -Anon. |
+--------------------------------------------+
Bob Casanova
On 7 Dec 1997 19:44:44 -0000, in talk.origins, "Jabriol"
<jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <66e7ka$5...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
> > > Interesting,
> > >
> > > many centuries ago it was the Church that set the limits...
> > >
> > >
> > > who authorize science to do so today?
> >
> > Scientists.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > Steve "Chris" Price
>
>
>very Good.. so maybe science will help evolution like hitler did.
>sound like a conspiracy to me.
Yep, I think you've got it...
"We're limiting ourselves and the scope of our work."
"AHA! So it's a *conspiracy*!"
Er, just for curiosity's sake, *who* is being conspired against?
Scientists?
(I don't think you could even *buy* a clue...)
James S. Lovejoy
Have you heard the term "clue immune" ?
--
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to
virtue knowledge 2 Peter 1:5
-
Jabriol
> > Really. A branch of biological science?
> >Can you point me to some articles (published in
> >the last thirty years, at least)?
>
> The bell curve, that study where they supposedly found the violence
> gene, and anything coming out the eugenics organizations.
>
> Nando
so evolution has prove via the Bell Curve, that certain races are violent.
well lets institute Hitler ideology a bit modified...
all those viloent people in the ghettos.. give em the baths...
evolution at its finest
Jabriol
> Yes, Darwin talked
> about "races" of man as thought that had some reality.
so Darwin did believe all others than white to be a inferior race..
just like Hitler.
Jabriol
> > The kiddies who learned it from biology textbooks for instance.
>
> What instance? Kids became racist after reading a biology textbook?
> Explain!
ya mean there is no biology teacher among the KKK?
Brandon M. Gorte
Jabriol (jab...@cris.com) wrote:
:
: > Yes, Darwin talked
: > about "races" of man as thought that had some reality.
:
: so Darwin did believe all others than white to be a inferior race..
:
: just like Hitler.
No, you moron. In the later half of the nineteenth century, racism was
very prevelant. Whether one was in England, Germany, America, or any
other like place.
Hitler took more from tradition and religion, and from eugenics. Eugenics
was the idea of creating a superior human race by many methods such as
breeding (Nazi Germany did use this one). Hitler actually destoyed some
of Germany's scientific knowledge, and sent others to concentration camps.
He also searched the world for religious artifacts that he thought would
help make him more powerful, and be attributed to what he called the
Ayran(sp?) race. This has a lot to do with decades of German nationalism,
and millenia of racism.
THE BANTER-LOG
There are people on talk.origins who indulge in confusing and twisting
the issues until they become meaninglees, or end up in a flamefest. Most
of them have no clue what the other Banter-log members are up to. That
is, only a few band together. They attempt to pull off scams either to
cover for the fact that they, the anti-evolutionists or IC's have no
evidence supporting their propaganda.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current membership:
Karl Crawford Mark Harpt
Prime Candidates:
Peter Nyikos Ed Conrad Jabriol Julie Thomas Jahnu
Haven't seen in a while, but deserve some sort of nomination:
Ted Holden Zoner
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Gorte
Associate Professor of Morrissic Flood/Brain Geology
University of Ediacara, Talk.Origins
Brian Westley
And how long have you been a complete idiot?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Raven
In article <66eubc$m...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
> very Good.. so maybe science will help evolution like hitler did.
> sound like a conspiracy to me.
BTW, have you figured out the difference between a social issue and
science issue yet? (8th attempt)
Raven
In article <66fcjf$2...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
>
> > > The kiddies who learned it from biology textbooks for instance.
> >
> > What instance? Kids became racist after reading a biology textbook?
> > Explain!
>
> ya mean there is no biology teacher among the KKK?
Don't it.
But there sure is a strong Christian movement in the KKK.
Ever hear of the Christian Identity?
Raven
In article <66fcdj$2...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
>
> > Yes, Darwin talked
> > about "races" of man as thought that had some reality.
>
> so Darwin did believe all others than white to be a inferior race..
>
> just like Hitler.
Actually, quite the opposite.
Every hear of his big fight with Fitzroy?
Fitzroy used his Bible as evidence as to why blacks should be enslaved.
Darwin was on the opposite.
Go figure.
ed...@world.net
"Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, Darwin talked
> > about "races" of man as thought that had some reality.
>
>so Darwin did believe all others than white to be a inferior race..
>
>just like Hitler.
>
Wasn't Darwin Jewish? If so, they are the original racists. So, what
might apply to him does not necessarily apply generally.
Eddie
--
Pantheon Unarmed Militia
A valid and rational solution to our nations problems
To participate visit this site and reply to the e-mail link
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/STEF
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, Darwin talked
> > about "races" of man as thought that had some reality.
>
>so Darwin did believe all others than white to be a inferior race..
>
>just like Hitler.
You know, even for a bigot like you this is stupid. Here is a free
hint yet again, a doughnut is round, the sun is round, the sun is not
a doughnut. Now do try to think just a bit.
Daniel Key
>
> > In article <66e7ka$5...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com
says...
> > > Interesting,
> > >
> > > many centuries ago it was the Church that set the limits...
> > >
> > >
> > > who authorize science to do so today?
> >
> > Scientists.
>
> sound like a conspiracy to me.
>
>
Jabriol, let me make this clear to you, Social Darwinism is based on a
misinterpreted version of 'true' Darwinian theory. It is based on the
(incorrect) assumptions that
1)There is some sort of Platonic Ideal to which we are progressing.
2) We know what that ideal is.
Evolution produces an adaptation to an environment, not progress towards
some 'ultimate state'.
very Good.. so maybe religion will help God like the Inquisition did.
sound like a conspiracy to me.
--
Daniel Key
"Watch where an enemy attacks you most, for it is his
own weakest point." Sun Tzu, The Art of War
R. Tang
In article <66fcdj$2...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, Darwin talked
> > about "races" of man as thought that had some reality.
>
>so Darwin did believe all others than white to be a inferior race..
No. Stop lying.
>just like Hitler.
Wrong.
You are a blasphemous liar. Stop taking the name of Christ in
vain.
--
Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
http://www.abcflash.com/arts/r_tang/AATR.html
Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
Jabriol
> and since hitler use the concept of 'volk' as expressed through a
> 'will' of nature, and not evolution, to build his aryan myth perhaps
> you'll tell us why you maintain evolution was necessary for hitler
> when he never uses it?
Evolution as you know today...maybe not... in fact evolution that is taught
to kids in school... is not as you know it. regardless of wether he knew of
evolutionor not is irrelevant. For centuries people have been breeding
animal
to get the best of the stock. People were unaware of how evloultion worked,
but they did know that if you breed a black bull, and a black cow, most
likely you will get a black calf, chance are that was the thought. Hitler
may have believe that he can make the Aryan Race better, by eliminating what
he considered, poor breeding stock. The Jew. Now I have put this objectively
before, and Matt just goes ape. But you must think that while Hitler was not
a scientist, he mave have had a science panel, backing up his point of view.
Jabriol
> From: nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap)
> Look Matt, there can be *several* elements which went to construct the
> aryan myth. One of those elements was science based. Obviously you
> feel that that wasn't true science, although it did come from the
> science establishment.
The problem with Matt is a simple one. He feels offended That Hitler use
the element of science to viciously destroyed inocent people. The fact is
Hitler use horrible experiment on the Jews in order to to enhance the
German Race. Hitler did not consider the Jews Humans, with by Hitler's way
of thinking, gave him right to do what he Did. The Issues at Hand was wether
Hitlers actions, was part of the on going evolutionary process or not.
Matt then drop his scientific robes, and started spewing the same epithets
to
me and others, in almost the same manners that Germans did to jews long ago.
Neithet Him of other evolutionist, have been able to answer the question.
why?
because of so call morals. However where did Morals originate in the human
species? is it a part of evolution to humans, as instinct is to animals?
If man evolved like they say, then Morals have evolved also, and are subject
to change, just like human are subject to change. By German Standard at the
time, it was moral to kill Jews, of course hitler is not the first Human to
do this. But his way of doing it is more popular. Matt can not look
objectively at this dilema.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > From: nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap)
>
>
> > Look Matt, there can be *several* elements which went to construct the
> > aryan myth. One of those elements was science based. Obviously you
> > feel that that wasn't true science, although it did come from the
> > science establishment.
>
>
>The problem with Matt is a simple one. He feels offended That Hitler use
>the element of science to viciously destroyed inocent people. The fact is
>Hitler use horrible experiment on the Jews in order to to enhance the
>German Race. Hitler did not consider the Jews Humans, with by Hitler's way
>of thinking, gave him right to do what he Did. The Issues at Hand was wether
>Hitlers actions, was part of the on going evolutionary process or not.
>
So what does this have to do with evolution? I get upset when you make
a causal claim between evolution and morality.
>Matt then drop his scientific robes, and started spewing the same epithets
>to
>me and others, in almost the same manners that Germans did to jews long ago.
My you are a vile liar. You have shown your bigotry over and over. I
just call you on it. You have shown a willingness to lie over and
over. I just call you on it. And you have shown many people exactly
what the JWs are about.
>Neithet Him of other evolutionist, have been able to answer the question.
>
>why?
>
What question?
>because of so call morals. However where did Morals originate in the human
>species? is it a part of evolution to humans, as instinct is to animals?
>
One more time so that maybe you can understand, science does not
proscribe morality. If you want to discuss human morals there are
plenty of places to do that. I have no interest in discussion my moral
education with someone who displays the immorality you display.
>If man evolved like they say, then Morals have evolved also, and are subject
>to change, just like human are subject to change. By German Standard at the
>time, it was moral to kill Jews, of course hitler is not the first Human to
>do this. But his way of doing it is more popular. Matt can not look
>objectively at this dilema.
Again I say you are a vile man and your co-religionists are moral
cowards at the least.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > and since hitler use the concept of 'volk' as expressed through a
> > 'will' of nature, and not evolution, to build his aryan myth perhaps
> > you'll tell us why you maintain evolution was necessary for hitler
> > when he never uses it?
>
>Evolution as you know today...maybe not... in fact evolution that is taught
>to kids in school... is not as you know it. regardless of wether he knew of
>evolutionor not is irrelevant. For centuries people have been breeding
>animal
>to get the best of the stock. People were unaware of how evloultion worked,
>but they did know that if you breed a black bull, and a black cow, most
>likely you will get a black calf, chance are that was the thought. Hitler
>may have believe that he can make the Aryan Race better, by eliminating what
>he considered, poor breeding stock. The Jew. Now I have put this objectively
>before, and Matt just goes ape.
I go "ape" because you are a bigoted liar. I also get upset when you
claim that Hitler's actions were moral or that they followed a
morality established by science.
BTW, I strongly recommend you spend your spare time learning to read
and write better and learning about evolution rather than by showing
off your ignorance.
>But you must think that while Hitler was not
>a scientist, he mave have had a science panel, backing up his point of view.
No, we think that science had nothing to do with his racism just like
it has nothing to do with yours.
David Johnston
Jabriol wrote:
>
> > Yes, Darwin talked
> > about "races" of man as thought that had some reality.
>
> so Darwin did believe all others than white to be a inferior race..
>
Gee. What a shock. A 19th century Englishman was racially
chauvinistic. How totally unanticipated.
Jabriol
> misinterpreted version of 'true' Darwinian theory. It is based on the
> (incorrect) assumptions that
> 1)There is some sort of Platonic Ideal to which we are progressing.
> 2) We know what that ideal is.
I understand what you are saying. However it is common belief that evolution
indicate progress to a better state, while this may be scientificly
incorrect.
on that same coin. science is now involve in gene manipulation to eliminate
those defective genes that cause birth defects. would you venture to say
that
science is advancing Human evolution?
Jabriol
> So what does this have to do with evolution? I get upset when you make
> a causal claim between evolution and morality.
ok.. let do a simple test. Where did morals originate from?, and why?
> My you are a vile liar. You have shown your bigotry over and over. I
> just call you on it. You have shown a willingness to lie over and
> over. I just call you on it. And you have shown many people exactly
> what the JWs are about.
my point on name calling has just been proven. yes I have shown you about
what JW's are about.. we are people just like like you. I do not go around
saying I am holier than thou.. far from it. JW's like to reason, I like to
reason more than most. If that bother you... well live with it.
What I call an extreme interetation of the result of evolution, you have no
defense and call me liar. which is typical of people who says they believe
in God, but hide on what there basis of belief is, like you.
> One more time so that maybe you can understand, science does not
> proscribe morality. If you want to discuss human morals there are
> plenty of places to do that. I have no interest in discussion my moral
> education with someone who displays the immorality you display.
you are telling us that science is unable to determine the origen of Morals?
men have morals, by your standard men has evolved... what is the origen of
morals?
> Again I say you are a vile man and your co-religionists are moral
> cowards at the least.
why bring up morality, it is not science?
once again where did moral in man originate?
Jabriol
> I go "ape" because you are a bigoted liar.
well at least ypu admit to share your antcestors trait
>>I also get upset when you
> claim that Hitler's actions were moral or that they followed a
> morality established by science.
Nope, I said by Hitlers standard, and many of his contemporaries believed
that what he did was moral.
Hitler had nazi scientist help..
Bruce Salem
In article <66ib0b$h...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > So what does this have to do with evolution? I get upset when you make
> > a causal claim between evolution and morality.
>
>ok.. let do a simple test. Where did morals originate from?, and why?
And why would the origin or morals relate to the scientific
correctness of Evolution? I think that I could demolish any argument
about the precident of moral authority over scientific truth by pointing
out how moral arguments are usually arguments by appeal to cultrue-bound
prejudice and failing that, force. And even if the world's religons are
set up to arbritrate moral absolutes, they have provided a poor example
of applying them. I part with the assertion that morality is best set
by example in conduct, not by proscription from people who are often seen
as hypocritic. Surely, you are an example in your day-to-day condcut of
what you ask others to do.
Bruce Salem
--
!! Just my opinions, maybe not those of my sponsor. !!
Bruce Salem
In article <66idkf$p...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > I go "ape" because you are a bigoted liar.
>
>well at least ypu admit to share your antcestors trait
Respect your elders, boy! You are only guarding territory and
reacting xenophobic to others of your own kind like trooping
primates have done long before they were human. Better be careful
lest your reptilian brain shows, too.
Raven
In article <66idkf$p...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
>
> > I go "ape" because you are a bigoted liar.
>
> well at least ypu admit to share your antcestors trait
>
>
> > claim that Hitler's actions were moral or that they followed a
> > morality established by science.
>
> Nope, I said by Hitlers standard, and many of his contemporaries believed
> that what he did was moral.
>
> Hitler had nazi scientist help..
He had more help from the Christians of his country and cited God on his
side many more times than any scientific help.
Raven
In article <66ib0b$h...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
>
> > So what does this have to do with evolution? I get upset when you make
> > a causal claim between evolution and morality.
>
> ok.. let do a simple test. Where did morals originate from?, and why?
Geez, not only is Jaby morally corrupt and a habitual liar, he is
intellectually lazy to boot. He won't even carry out his own work to
back up his assertion of casual claim between evolution and morality.
Nando Ronteltap
>>The problem with Matt is a simple one. He feels offended That Hitler use
>>the element of science to viciously destroyed inocent people. The fact is
>>Hitler use horrible experiment on the Jews in order to to enhance the
>>German Race. Hitler did not consider the Jews Humans, with by Hitler's way
>>of thinking, gave him right to do what he Did. The Issues at Hand was wether
>>Hitlers actions, was part of the on going evolutionary process or not.
>>
>So what does this have to do with evolution? I get upset when you make
>a causal claim between evolution and morality.
I have repeatedly seen conjectures on talk.atheism by atheists to tie
morality to evolution. Whenever a debate about morality is started
inevitably it pops up.
>>Matt then drop his scientific robes, and started spewing the same epithets
>>to
>>me and others, in almost the same manners that Germans did to jews long ago.
>
>My you are a vile liar. You have shown your bigotry over and over. I
>just call you on it. You have shown a willingness to lie over and
>over. I just call you on it. And you have shown many people exactly
>what the JWs are about.
Oh really did he now. You two can play a contest for bigotry.
>>because of so call morals. However where did Morals originate in the human
>>species? is it a part of evolution to humans, as instinct is to animals?
>>
>One more time so that maybe you can understand, science does not
>proscribe morality. If you want to discuss human morals there are
>plenty of places to do that. I have no interest in discussion my moral
>education with someone who displays the immorality you display.
Except that is not the way people act. People here do take personal
consequence from scientific findings, change their beliefs to comply
with science. So much so that I would say it constitutes the main part
of their beliefs. The scientific method, and the scientific knowledge.
Why do I have to explain to you what will means, why do you pretend
not to know what I am talking about? It's because you *must* apply
science to will, no truth can be derived otherwise.
>>If man evolved like they say, then Morals have evolved also, and are subject
>>to change, just like human are subject to change. By German Standard at the
>>time, it was moral to kill Jews, of course hitler is not the first Human to
>>do this. But his way of doing it is more popular. Matt can not look
>>objectively at this dilema.
>
>Again I say you are a vile man and your co-religionists are moral
>cowards at the least.
And you falsify history when you say nazi race ideology had nothing to
do with science of evolution, or when you don't recognize Darwin as
one of the most influential racists in modern history. I find it
bizarre for someone who is himself seemingly steeped in science to
simply deny the major influence science has on society including the
morality of people.
Nando
Peter Swindells
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > I go "ape" because you are a bigoted liar.
>
>well at least ypu admit to share your antcestors trait
>
As has been said by a better man than I, I would rather descend from a
monkey than from someone like you.
>
>>>I also get upset when you
> > claim that Hitler's actions were moral or that they followed a
> > morality established by science.
>
>Nope, I said by Hitlers standard, and many of his contemporaries believed
>that what he did was moral.
>
>Hitler had nazi scientist help..
No, that was not your claim. It is a trivial and vacuous claim
however. You did, at least at some point, try to draw a connection
between Hitler and evolution. If you have dropped that claim you
should let us know.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > So what does this have to do with evolution? I get upset when you make
> > a causal claim between evolution and morality.
>
>ok.. let do a simple test. Where did morals originate from?, and why?
>
If I thought that 1) you wanted to discuss this and 2) that you have
something to bring to the discussion and 3) that you would understand
the discussion, then I would do so. Can you show me any evidence to
satisfy any of these conditions?
>
>
> > My you are a vile liar. You have shown your bigotry over and over. I
> > just call you on it. You have shown a willingness to lie over and
> > over. I just call you on it. And you have shown many people exactly
> > what the JWs are about.
>
>
>my point on name calling has just been proven. yes I have shown you about
>what JW's are about.. we are people just like like you. I do not go around
>saying I am holier than thou.. far from it. JW's like to reason, I like to
>reason more than most. If that bother you... well live with it.
>
Reason? Reason? Where have you made any attempt to reason. It is not
your use of reason that bothers me. It is your religious bigotry, it
is your ignorance of science, it is your ignorance of history, it is
your offensive comments about me and my family. (The family comments
are implied in each of your comments about Hitler.)
>What I call an extreme interetation of the result of evolution, you have no
>defense and call me liar.
You are a liar because you say things which are not true and you have
reason to know are not true. You are a liar when you post other's
material and don't give credit. You are a liar when you repeatedly say
that "evolutionists" make claims they don't make.
What also bothers me is that you do not seem to be able to distinguish
between how you "interpret" (I assume that was what you meant) and how
others interpret. You do not understand evolution and you do not
understand science, but rather than accept that you don't understand,
you insist on presenting your ignorance as though it were truth.
> which is typical of people who says they believe
>in God, but hide on what there basis of belief is, like you.
>
Again, you show your ignorance and bigotry.
>
> > One more time so that maybe you can understand, science does not
> > proscribe morality. If you want to discuss human morals there are
> > plenty of places to do that. I have no interest in discussion my moral
> > education with someone who displays the immorality you display.
>
>
>you are telling us that science is unable to determine the origen of Morals?
>men have morals, by your standard men has evolved... what is the origen of
>morals?
>
That is a question that can be answered on several levels. It seems
rather clear from a biological standpoint that much of the behavior
that we call moral can be developed via evolutionary mechanism. Mutual
altruism is a successful strategy. OTOH, there is a concept of "moral"
and "right" that is independent, IMO, from this biology. And I am not
terrible interested in discussion "right" with you.
>
>
> > Again I say you are a vile man and your co-religionists are moral
> > cowards at the least.
>
>why bring up morality, it is not science?
>
Because of your actions. I will point out again that I do not judge my
actions or yours by science.
>once again where did moral in man originate?
Are you somehow distressed that I did not answer your question yet?
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>In talk.origins "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>>>The problem with Matt is a simple one. He feels offended That Hitler use
>>>the element of science to viciously destroyed inocent people. The fact is
>>>Hitler use horrible experiment on the Jews in order to to enhance the
>>>German Race. Hitler did not consider the Jews Humans, with by Hitler's way
>>>of thinking, gave him right to do what he Did. The Issues at Hand was wether
>>>Hitlers actions, was part of the on going evolutionary process or not.
>>>
>>So what does this have to do with evolution? I get upset when you make
>>a causal claim between evolution and morality.
>
>I have repeatedly seen conjectures on talk.atheism by atheists to tie
>morality to evolution. Whenever a debate about morality is started
>inevitably it pops up.
>
And your point is?
>>>Matt then drop his scientific robes, and started spewing the same epithets
>>>to
>>>me and others, in almost the same manners that Germans did to jews long ago.
>>
>>My you are a vile liar. You have shown your bigotry over and over. I
>>just call you on it. You have shown a willingness to lie over and
>>over. I just call you on it. And you have shown many people exactly
>>what the JWs are about.
>
>Oh really did he now. You two can play a contest for bigotry.
>
And what bigotry have I shown? Jabriol has cross-posted comments to
the JW newsgroup and talk.origins. Jabriol has repeatedly shown his
willingness to lie and his bigotry. And there have been no comments
from any of the JWs against Jabriol. I have asked over and over for
some response but only received silence. So I think that their actions
say something about them. I am not drawing the conclusion, just
pointing to the evidence.
>>>because of so call morals. However where did Morals originate in the human
>>>species? is it a part of evolution to humans, as instinct is to animals?
>>>
>>One more time so that maybe you can understand, science does not
>>proscribe morality. If you want to discuss human morals there are
>>plenty of places to do that. I have no interest in discussion my moral
>>education with someone who displays the immorality you display.
>
>Except that is not the way people act. People here do take personal
>consequence from scientific findings, change their beliefs to comply
>with science. So much so that I would say it constitutes the main part
>of their beliefs.
Can you give some examples of this? And what would you suggest if your
belief contradicted observation?
>The scientific method, and the scientific knowledge.
The sentence.
>Why do I have to explain to you what will means, why do you pretend
>not to know what I am talking about? It's because you *must* apply
>science to will, no truth can be derived otherwise.
>
It is because I wanted to know which of the several meanings you had
in mind. Why did you continually refuse to answer my simple question
on whether you means some kind of anima?
>>>If man evolved like they say, then Morals have evolved also, and are subject
>>>to change, just like human are subject to change. By German Standard at the
>>>time, it was moral to kill Jews, of course hitler is not the first Human to
>>>do this. But his way of doing it is more popular. Matt can not look
>>>objectively at this dilema.
>>
>>Again I say you are a vile man and your co-religionists are moral
>>cowards at the least.
>
>And you falsify history when you say nazi race ideology had nothing to
>do with science of evolution,
My claim, which is supported historically, is that Nazi ideology was
not caused by the study of evolution nor the theory of evolution.
"Nothing to do with" is a rather broad claim.
>or when you don't recognize Darwin as
>one of the most influential racists in modern history.
You have yet to establish in the slightest that Darwin was a racist.
Then you would have to show that his racism was in some way
influential.
> I find it
>bizarre for someone who is himself seemingly steeped in science to
>simply deny the major influence science has on society including the
>morality of people.
>
I have never denied that influence. I have denied the specific
influences you claim. I have some experience exploring how science
influences society. This task requires a bit more than posting one
sentence.
alan filipski
In article <66ib0b$h...@examiner.concentric.net> jab...@cris.com writes:
-
-ok.. let do a simple test. Where did morals originate from?,
OK, that's a good question, one that you'll get a variety of answers
to. I think the origin or morals has something to do with this: A
co-operative individual does well in a small group of hunter-gatherers,
so for most of our genus' history, any heritable tendency toward
co-operative behavior would spread. We're more like dogs than cats in
that respect. The other factor is cultural. We tend to learn a lot,
including morality, from those around us as we grow up. Again,
that's pretty clearly a good strategy for surviving and reproducing
in most situations.
alan filipski
Ian Samuels
On 9 Dec 1997, Nando Ronteltap droned on and on
and on until he started frothing at the mouth and
fell over backwards:
[snip]
> I have repeatedly seen conjectures on talk.atheism by atheists to tie
> morality to evolution. Whenever a debate about morality is started
> inevitably it pops up.
We've repeatedly seen attempts by *you* to
tie morality to evolution. Yet interestingly
enough, you faded away when repeatedly and
seriously challenged on the subject. And I don't
blame you.
[snip]
> And you falsify history when you say nazi race ideology had nothing to
> do with science of evolution,
[blah blah...]
These arguments have been demolished so
many times, so thoroughly on this thread that's it
hard to believe you'd try to bring them up again
as if none of it had happened. C'mon, tell us
again how Plavsic is a "biologist"?
Cheers,
Ian
___________________________________________________
"Know your enemy, know yourself, and in a
thousand battles you will not be defeated." - Sun
Tzu, _The Art of War_
"SPOON!" - The Tick
Doug Berry
On 8 Dec 1997 23:13:57 -0000, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>on that same coin. science is now involve in gene manipulation to eliminate
>those defective genes that cause birth defects. would you venture to say
>that
>science is advancing Human evolution?
Yes and no. Yes because those genes will be out of the pool, and no
because it isn't strictly evolution if we do it ourselves.
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Douglas E. Berry dbe...@nospam.hooked.net |
| http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/index.html |
| (remove "nospam" to reply by mail) |
|--------------------------------------------|
| "History is the vast and tangled web |
| of Conspiracy." -Anon. |
+--------------------------------------------+
Daniel Key
>
> > From: nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap)
>
>
> > Look Matt, there can be *several* elements which went to construct the
> > aryan myth. One of those elements was science based. Obviously you
> > feel that that wasn't true science, although it did come from the
> > science establishment.
>
>
> the element of science to viciously destroyed inocent people. The fact is
> Hitler use horrible experiment on the Jews in order to to enhance the
> German Race. Hitler did not consider the Jews Humans, with by Hitler's
way
> of thinking, gave him right to do what he Did. The Issues at Hand was
wether
> Hitlers actions, was part of the on going evolutionary process or not.
>
epithets
> to
> me and others, in almost the same manners that Germans did to jews long
ago.
>
> why?
>
human
> species? is it a part of evolution to humans, as instinct is to animals?
>
subject
> to change, just like human are subject to change. By German Standard at
the
> time, it was moral to kill Jews, of course hitler is not the first Human
to
> do this. But his way of doing it is more popular. Matt can not look
> objectively at this dilema.
>
Well done, this is almost a coherent argument, it does have several weak
points though. Hitlers actions were certainly not part of the 'evolutionary
process', they were artificial selection. Morals are certainly subject to
change, when was the last time you advocated the death penalty for
trespassing? Morals must be judged from the moral 'average' of the times,
the vast majority of people in Hitler's Germany (and the rest of the world)
would not have advocated the Holocaust, this makes it wrong. Animals have
enforced morals, just as humans do, rogue males ejected from elephant herds
and so on. Experiments have proven that these are *learned* just as human
morals are. The reason specific moral systems develop is through a
semi-Darwinian (or maybe more Lamarkian) process to prevent society
self-destructing.
Daniel Key
>
> > > The kiddies who learned it from biology textbooks for instance.
> >
> > What instance? Kids became racist after reading a biology textbook?
> > Explain!
>
> ya mean there is no biology teacher among the KKK?
>
>
Grow up Jabriol.
1) The KKK died out in the early 70's
2)Someone being taught at a KKK school probably doesn't have a *very*
racially sensitive view of life to begin with.
3) This is irrelevant, we are talking about mainstream education, not a few
psycho right-wing groups.
Daniel Key
>
> > and since hitler use the concept of 'volk' as expressed through a
> > 'will' of nature, and not evolution, to build his aryan myth perhaps
> > you'll tell us why you maintain evolution was necessary for hitler
> > when he never uses it?
>
> Evolution as you know today...maybe not... in fact evolution that is
taught
> to kids in school... is not as you know it. regardless of wether he knew
of
> evolutionor not is irrelevant. For centuries people have been breeding
> animal
> to get the best of the stock. People were unaware of how evloultion
worked,
> but they did know that if you breed a black bull, and a black cow, most
> likely you will get a black calf, chance are that was the thought. Hitler
> may have believe that he can make the Aryan Race better, by eliminating
what
> he considered, poor breeding stock. The Jew. Now I have put this
objectively
not
> a scientist, he mave have had a science panel, backing up his point of
view.
>
>
So you are now saying the Theory of Evolution is *not* to blame for the
Holocaust, this is a bit of a reversal of your original position. Hitler
never had a 'science panel' backing him up, he had the Blood Libel and 400
years of anti-Semitism, plus someone to blame for the defeat of Germany in
the World War I. With all that he didn't need a 'science panel'.
Daniel Key
>
> > misinterpreted version of 'true' Darwinian theory. It is based on the
> > (incorrect) assumptions that
> > 1)There is some sort of Platonic Ideal to which we are progressing.
> > 2) We know what that ideal is.
>
> I understand what you are saying. However it is common belief that
evolution
> indicate progress to a better state, while this may be scientificly
> incorrect.
>
So it is based on a misinterpretation, like I said.
> on that same coin. science is now involve in gene manipulation to
eliminate
> those defective genes that cause birth defects. would you venture to say
> that
> science is advancing Human evolution?
>
>
No, evolution is the process of better adaptation to an environment through
natural selection. I would say that this is human manipulation of the gene
pool, I'd put it under the same heading as livestock breeding.
Daniel Key
Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<66ib0b$h...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>
>
> why bring up morality, it is not science?
>
> once again where did moral in man originate?
>
>
Morals in man (and all other animals) are a set of rules to define a social
structure that works and doesn't self-destruct, nothing more, nothing less.
Jabriol
> If I thought that 1) you wanted to discuss this and 2) that you have
> something to bring to the discussion and 3) that you would understand
> the discussion, then I would do so. Can you show me any evidence to
> satisfy any of these conditions?
I think you just cant, and using excuses.
you cant tell us if morals has evolve can you?
you cant tell us what functionit plays in evolution?
you know it is ok to admit of not knowing.. it is not a sin.
wf...@enter.netxx
On 9 Dec 1997 13:40:14 -0000, nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
>I have repeatedly seen conjectures on talk.atheism by atheists to tie
>morality to evolution. Whenever a debate about morality is started
>inevitably it pops up.
gee havent seen it here..you mean there is NO crossposting between
that group and talk.origins?
>
>
>Except that is not the way people act. People here do take personal
>consequence from scientific findings, change their beliefs to comply
>with science.
what they BELIEVE to be science. and how does one 'change ones beliefs
to comply with science' since science has no 'beliefs'?
So much so that I would say it constitutes the main part
>of their beliefs.
vague...nebulous...general...your grade school teacher would give you
an "F" for a statement like that.
>
>And you falsify history when you say nazi race ideology had nothing to
>do with science of evolution
it didnt since hitler never mentions it. not once. this is another
creation of paranoid revisionists like you. prove it!! what we DO know
is hitler got his antisemitism from the institution that invented
it...the roman catholic church
===============================================================
if you want to know who 'wf3h' is, go to the 'qrz' database and
enter 'wf3h' at the prompt
wf...@enter.netxx
On 8 Dec 1997 23:13:57 -0000, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>on that same coin. science is now involve in gene manipulation to eliminate
>those defective genes that cause birth defects. would you venture to say
>that
>science is advancing Human evolution?
bizarre. everytime ANY medicine is used to cure an illness...it alters
the course of 'evolution'. so gene therapy is NO different.
you just dont understand science jabriol
wf...@enter.netxx
On 7 Dec 1997 19:44:44 -0000, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>very Good.. so maybe science will help evolution like hitler did.
>sound like a conspiracy to me.
>
<chuckle> everything sounds like a conspiracy to jabriol.
Nando Ronteltap
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>In talk.origins nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
>>And you falsify history when you say nazi race ideology had nothing to
>>do with science of evolution,
>
>My claim, which is supported historically,
rubbish
> is that Nazi ideology was
>not caused by the study of evolution nor the theory of evolution.
Your wording is inappropiate. The nazi's applied the theory in their
racist ideologies.
>"Nothing to do with" is a rather broad claim.
That doesn't stop you however from claiming science had nothing to do
with Hitler's racism.
>>or when you don't recognize Darwin as
>>one of the most influential racists in modern history.
>
>You have yet to establish in the slightest that Darwin was a racist.
>Then you would have to show that his racism was in some way
>influential.
I can do this over and over same as with Plavsic.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will
no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian
and the gorilla." (Darwin, Descent of man)
This AFAIK widely publicized book, is what you mean by not the
slightest evidence of Darwin being an influential racist.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
Ian Samuels <ilsa...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>On 9 Dec 1997, Nando Ronteltap droned on and on
>and on until he started frothing at the mouth and
>fell over backwards:
lame
>[snip]
>
>> I have repeatedly seen conjectures on talk.atheism by atheists to tie
>> morality to evolution. Whenever a debate about morality is started
>> inevitably it pops up.
>
> We've repeatedly seen attempts by *you* to
>tie morality to evolution. Yet interestingly
>enough, you faded away when repeatedly and
>seriously challenged on the subject. And I don't
>blame you.
Projection Ian, I answered fully. You however were not so kind to show
me how the theory of evolution works out, when you selfconsciously
apply it to human beings.
>> And you falsify history when you say nazi race ideology had nothing to
>> do with science of evolution,
>
>[blah blah...]
>
> These arguments have been demolished so
>many times, so thoroughly on this thread that's it
>hard to believe you'd try to bring them up again
>as if none of it had happened.
Go burn the history book I quoted to demolish them further. You're
simply lying.
> C'mon, tell us
>again how Plavsic is a "biologist"?
Okay by me. Just to demonstrate again what it means when people here
say there is no link between evolution theory and racism. Presenting
professor Plavsic of the university of Sarajevo, she lectured in the
USA as well.
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/bosnia/plavsic.html
Nando
Dave Haas
Doug Berry wrote:
>
> On 8 Dec 1997 23:13:57 -0000, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> >on that same coin. science is now involve in gene manipulation to eliminate
> >those defective genes that cause birth defects. would you venture to say
> >that
> >science is advancing Human evolution?
>
> because it isn't strictly evolution if we do it ourselves.
You're talking about a mighty big pool here. Most of the 6 or so
billion humans are not in the shallow end where the genes may be
removed by an expensive procedure. And what about those who do not
believe in abortion. This is the easiest way to prevent nasty genes
from becoming part of the pool. The idea that all "life" is sacred
stresses quantity rather than quality of genes. Does this sound like
eugenics? Not really. Humans have been aborting and disposing of
unwanted fetuses ever since they became human.
D. Haas
Laurence A. Moran
In article <348dcb2...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>bizarre. everytime ANY medicine is used to cure an illness...it alters
>the course of 'evolution'. so gene therapy is NO different.
How bizarre. Please explain how penicillin altered the course of
evolution. How about small pox vaccine - did it alter the course of
evolution?
>you just dont understand science jabriol
I guess I don't either.
Larry Moran
Paul Ford
In article <66fcdj$2...@examiner.concentric.net>,
"Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, Darwin talked
> > about "races" of man as thought that had some reality.
>
>so Darwin did believe all others than white to be a inferior race..
Oh? Upon what SUBSTANTIVE information do you base this conclusion?
"This boy is Ignorance. This girl is | Want to know what evolution
Want. Beware them both, and all of their | is really about? See the
degree, but most of all beware this boy, | talk.origins archive
for on his brow I see that written which |
is Doom..." | http://www.talkorigins.org
- Dickens, "A Christmas Carol" |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Ho-Stuart
The notion of "altering the course of evolution" is a little vague,
since evolution is not something with a fixed course that can
be changed. We can alter the course of a river, because we know
where the river flows, and can change it to flow somewhere else.
However, the future course of evolution is not something that
currently exists to be changed.
That quibble aside, it seems that with respect to evolution we can say
that "altering the course of evolution" is meant to convey the idea of
an effect on distributions of heritable characteristics of future
populations.
In this sense, penicillin alters the course of evolution because it
changes selective pressures.
I would prefer to say: "has an effect on the future course of evolution",
but that aside, is there anything else wrong with this idea?
Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Jabriol
> -
> -ok.. let do a simple test. Where did morals originate from?,
>
>
> OK, that's a good question, one that you'll get a variety of answers
> to. I think the origin or morals has something to do with this: A
> co-operative individual does well in a small group of hunter-gatherers,
> so for most of our genus' history, any heritable tendency toward
> co-operative behavior would spread. We're more like dogs than cats in
> that respect. The other factor is cultural. We tend to learn a lot,
> including morality, from those around us as we grow up. Again,
> that's pretty clearly a good strategy for surviving and reproducing
> in most situations.
>
> alan filipski
So morals elvoved, and are changing to meet the ongoing process of
evolution.
Ian Samuels
On 9 Dec 1997, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> Ian Samuels <ilsa...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> >On 9 Dec 1997, Nando Ronteltap droned on and on
> >and on until he started frothing at the mouth and
> >fell over backwards:
>
> lame
>
> >[snip]
> >
> >> I have repeatedly seen conjectures on talk.atheism by atheists to tie
> >> morality to evolution. Whenever a debate about morality is started
> >> inevitably it pops up.
> >
> > We've repeatedly seen attempts by *you* to
> >tie morality to evolution. Yet interestingly
> >enough, you faded away when repeatedly and
> >seriously challenged on the subject. And I don't
> >blame you.
>
> Projection Ian, I answered fully.
"Answers" which I refuted point by point
in my last post to you, after which you shut up
rather abruptly.
[snippery]
> >> And you falsify history when you say nazi race ideology had nothing to
> >> do with science of evolution,
> >
> >[blah blah...]
> >
> > These arguments have been demolished so
> >many times, so thoroughly on this thread that's it
> >hard to believe you'd try to bring them up again
> >as if none of it had happened.
>
> Go burn the history book I quoted to demolish them further. You're
> simply lying.
Of course you had, and probably have, no
adequate response to my points concerning
Poliakov. In fact, you wound up admitting that he
agreed with _my_ interpretation of Nazi
constructions of Aryan myths! But of course, since
you didn't win the argument, your opponent must
be "lying." A venerable creationist tactic.
> > C'mon, tell us
> >again how Plavsic is a "biologist"?
>
> Okay by me. Just to demonstrate again what it means when people here
> say there is no link between evolution theory and racism. Presenting
> professor Plavsic of the university of Sarajevo, she lectured in the
> USA as well.
Thank you once again for publicly
promoting Plavsic's delusions as genuine science.
To an observer who didn't know you're really not a
racist (and FWIW, I sincerely do believe you're
well-intentioned), this sort of behaviour could be
easily misinterpreted.
> http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/bosnia/plavsic.html
>
> Nando
Paul Andrew King
In article <34b149f0...@news.xs4all.nl>,
nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
>
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>In talk.origins "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
>>>The problem with Matt is a simple one. He feels offended That Hitler use
>>>the element of science to viciously destroyed inocent people. The fact is
>>>Hitler use horrible experiment on the Jews in order to to enhance the
>>>German Race. Hitler did not consider the Jews Humans, with by Hitler's way
>>>of thinking, gave him right to do what he Did. The Issues at Hand was wether
>>>Hitlers actions, was part of the on going evolutionary process or not.
>>>
>>So what does this have to do with evolution? I get upset when you make
>>a causal claim between evolution and morality.
>
>I have repeatedly seen conjectures on talk.atheism by atheists to tie
>morality to evolution. Whenever a debate about morality is started
>inevitably it pops up.
And - as usual - you have failed to understand the connection.
It is not claimed that the theory is in itself a moral guide. It *is*
claimed that *aspects* of what we call morality are evolutionary
advantageous and therefore *may* be the result of evolution. But what can
we expect from someone who supports Serb fanatics ?
>
>>>Matt then drop his scientific robes, and started spewing the same epithets
>>>to
>>>me and others, in almost the same manners that Germans did to jews long ago.
>>
>>My you are a vile liar. You have shown your bigotry over and over. I
>>just call you on it. You have shown a willingness to lie over and
>>over. I just call you on it. And you have shown many people exactly
>>what the JWs are about.
>
>Oh really did he now. You two can play a contest for bigotry.
Jabriol wins hands down. Along with your "She Who Must be Beleived",
Pavsic. Then you.
>
>>>because of so call morals. However where did Morals originate in the human
>>>species? is it a part of evolution to humans, as instinct is to animals?
>>>
>>One more time so that maybe you can understand, science does not
>>proscribe morality. If you want to discuss human morals there are
>>plenty of places to do that. I have no interest in discussion my moral
>>education with someone who displays the immorality you display.
>
>Except that is not the way people act. People here do take personal
>consequence from scientific findings, change their beliefs to comply
>with science.
True. But what is the connection ? Someone might change their beliefs on
a matter of scientific fact. They might even change a moral belief because
it wwas based on an error - but they will not change the basic concepts of
their morality. (e.g. someone who believed that homosexuality was wrong
because it was "unnatural" might change their mind when they discovered
that "homosexual" behaviour occurs in other species - but someone who
believed that homosexuality was inherently wrong would not).
So much so that I would say it constitutes the main part
>of their beliefs. The scientific method, and the scientific knowledge.
Which is, of course, entirely correct when trying to determine the nature
of our universe. But to get from science to morality simply doesn't work.
Is it morally wrong to stand up because we are going against the natural
force of gravity ? Basic moral views are untouched by science - science
only provides facts which may be used tomake moral judgements.
>Why do I have to explain to you what will means, why do you pretend
>not to know what I am talking about? It's because you *must* apply
>science to will, no truth can be derived otherwise.
What do you mean "apply science to will" ?
>
>>>If man evolved like they say, then Morals have evolved also, and are subject
>>>to change, just like human are subject to change. By German Standard at the
>>>time, it was moral to kill Jews, of course hitler is not the first Human to
>>>do this. But his way of doing it is more popular. Matt can not look
>>>objectively at this dilema.
>>
>>Again I say you are a vile man and your co-religionists are moral
>>cowards at the least.
>
>And you falsify history when you say nazi race ideology had nothing to
>do with science of evolution,
Does he ? Where's your evidence that evolutionary theory is in any way
responsible for Nazi ideology ? Anti-semitism, pogroms and racism have a
*long* history, greatly predating the science of evolution.
or when you don't recognize Darwin as
>one of the most influential racists in modern history.
His "racism" - which was entirely normal for a person of his time - is
hardly influential. I doubt you could find someone more opposed to racism
and other forms of discrimination than Stephen Jay Gould. Which shows how
hollow and empty your arguments are.
I find it
>bizarre for someone who is himself seemingly steeped in science to
>simply deny the major influence science has on society including the
>morality of people.
>
Perhaps you should try supporting your claims rather than calling it
"bizarre" that anyone disagrees ? After all you were promoting Pavsic as
an example, and it is quite clear that you were completely wrong to do so.
Whether you were doing so out of intentional malice and dishonesty or
simple ignorance I don't know and I don't much care.
--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")
Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply
Paul K.
Nando Ronteltap
Ian Samuels <ilsa...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>On 9 Dec 1997, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> Ian Samuels <ilsa...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>> > We've repeatedly seen attempts by *you* to
>> >tie morality to evolution. Yet interestingly
>> >enough, you faded away when repeatedly and
>> >seriously challenged on the subject. And I don't
>> >blame you.
>>
>> Projection Ian, I answered fully.
>
> "Answers" which I refuted point by point
refuted is such a big word
>in my last post to you, after which you shut up
>rather abruptly.
That post didn't arrive, I've seen it now and it's not really worth
replying to anymore.
>> Go burn the history book I quoted to demolish them further. You're
>> simply lying.
>
> Of course you had, and probably have, no
>adequate response to my points concerning
>Poliakov. In fact, you wound up admitting that he
>agreed with _my_ interpretation of Nazi
>constructions of Aryan myths! But of course, since
>you didn't win the argument, your opponent must
>be "lying." A venerable creationist tactic.
Actually I now believe that me suggesting Poliakov says religion is
the main cause might very well be a bunch of crap, I'm quite sure I
made a mistake in attributing.
You admit that evolutionairy theory up to 1920 was racist. Then it is
supposed to have changed. I still can find many references from racist
science until after that date however in the twenties and thirties, so
I don't actually see what the hell you're talking about anyway.
>> > C'mon, tell us
>> >again how Plavsic is a "biologist"?
>>
>> Okay by me. Just to demonstrate again what it means when people here
>> say there is no link between evolution theory and racism. Presenting
>> professor Plavsic of the university of Sarajevo, she lectured in the
>> USA as well.
>
> Thank you once again for publicly
>promoting Plavsic's delusions as genuine science.
It is genuine science.
>To an observer who didn't know you're really not a
>racist (and FWIW, I sincerely do believe you're
>well-intentioned), this sort of behaviour could be
>easily misinterpreted.
Right, and me saying Darwin's books are genuine science can easily be
misinterpreted also. Genuine science can still be genuinely wrong as
it is here, but that concept of science being wrong but still being
science is simply beyond you, and I suppose that goes for many people.
Nando
Laurence A. Moran
In article <66ku3u$3h0$1...@dove.qut.edu.au> Chris Ho-Stuart
>In talk.atheism Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> In article <348dcb2...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>>
>> >bizarre. everytime ANY medicine is used to cure an illness...it alters
>> >the course of 'evolution'. so gene therapy is NO different.
>>
>> How bizarre. Please explain how penicillin altered the course of
>> evolution. How about small pox vaccine - did it alter the course of
>> evolution?
>The notion of "altering the course of evolution" is a little vague,
>since evolution is not something with a fixed course that can
>be changed. We can alter the course of a river, because we know
>where the river flows, and can change it to flow somewhere else.
>However, the future course of evolution is not something that
>currently exists to be changed.
Good point. I agree. This wasn't what I objected to in wf3h's posting but
it's well to keep this point in mind.
>That quibble aside, it seems that with respect to evolution we can say
>that "altering the course of evolution" is meant to convey the idea of
>an effect on distributions of heritable characteristics of future
>populations.
I think this is what wf3h meant. You have to assume that all illnesses
have an effect on heritable characteristics in order for this to be true.
Is it known that all bacterial infections selectively kill off those who
are genetically susceptable? Is it known that smallpox affected the
frequency of alleles in humans?
>In this sense, penicillin alters the course of evolution because it
>changes selective pressures.
Aside from the obvious selective pressures on bacteria (which I don't
think wf3h was referring to), how does this work? Were humans under
selective pressure due to bacterial infections before the discovery of
penicillin? I suppose it's possible that a subset of humans that were
geneticallly susceptable to bacteria are now being spared but does this
justify the statement that "ANY medicine ... alters the course of
evolution"? What about anti-cancer drugs, aspirin, cough syrup, and the
array of drugs used to treat accident victims in the emergency room?
>I would prefer to say: "has an effect on the future course of evolution",
>but that aside, is there anything else wrong with this idea?
I don't like the idea that all injuries and diseases alter the frequency
of genes in the human population. In some cases there may not be a genetic
component and evolution requires changes in *heritable* characteristics.
Larry Moran
alan filipski
In article <66l0tm$r...@examiner.concentric.net> jab...@cris.com writes:
-
-So morals elvoved, and are changing to meet the ongoing process of
-evolution.
-
We were talking about the *origins* of morality, not its ongoing change.
I think it's an observable fact that morals differ from time to time and
from place to place (though some claim there's a "common core"). The
differences, at least over the past few millenia, are certainly due more
to cultural change than biological evolution. Biological evolution
is too slow to have a noticeable effect on what you
seem to be talking about. What are you getting at?
alan filipski
Raven
In article <66kfu6$6...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
>
> > If I thought that 1) you wanted to discuss this and 2) that you have
> > something to bring to the discussion and 3) that you would understand
> > the discussion, then I would do so. Can you show me any evidence to
> > satisfy any of these conditions?
>
>
> I think you just cant, and using excuses.
Uh, Jaby, he was asking you the question.
> you cant tell us if morals has evolve can you?
Sure they have. Having slaves in the US was considered generally moral,
but what many Christians insist was a Christian nation.
Is slavery still considered moral by Christians?
If so, then I'm wrong in this case, morals haven't evolved.
If not, then I'm right in this case, morals have evolved.
> you cant tell us what functionit plays in evolution?
Not much for the most part, but in extremes it possible.
> you know it is ok to admit of not knowing.. it is not a sin.
Given that stance, you've gotta how lot of non-sins to confess.
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
ra...@kaiwan.com
OR
cem...@sprintmail.com
Ian Samuels
On 10 Dec 1997, Nando Ronteltap wrote:
[probably the closest thing to an admission of
defeat I'm likely to get from him]
Better luck next time.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>In talk.origins nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
>
>>>And you falsify history when you say nazi race ideology had nothing to
>>>do with science of evolution,
>>
>>My claim, which is supported historically,
>
>rubbish
>
Then show us the quotes where they use the Theory of Evolution (a
scientific "doctrine") as support. And explain how this was more
significant than the political and religious sources.
>> is that Nazi ideology was
>>not caused by the study of evolution nor the theory of evolution.
>
>Your wording is inappropiate. The nazi's applied the theory in their
>racist ideologies.
>
Really? Then why can't you supply some support for your claim. BTW,
not every sentence with the word "survival" comes from the Theory of
Evolution. You need to show how they explicitly used the scientific
theory of evolution as a support or causal factor in their ideology.
If you claim is the trivial claim that they worked for what they
considered their own survival then who cares?
>>"Nothing to do with" is a rather broad claim.
>
>That doesn't stop you however from claiming science had nothing to do
>with Hitler's racism.
>
ROTFLMAO. I explicitly say that I am not making that claim and you
turn around and say I do. I am not saying that it had "nothing to do"
with it. I am saying it was meaningless as a causal factor.
>>>or when you don't recognize Darwin as
>>>one of the most influential racists in modern history.
>>
>>You have yet to establish in the slightest that Darwin was a racist.
>>Then you would have to show that his racism was in some way
>>influential.
>
>I can do this over and over same as with Plavsic.
>
>"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
>civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
>the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
>anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will
>no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
>will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
>civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
>as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian
>and the gorilla." (Darwin, Descent of man)
>
>This AFAIK widely publicized book, is what you mean by not the
>slightest evidence of Darwin being an influential racist.
First off, this is the exact same sentence that you used before.
Second, it does not show in any way he was racist. It is a
descriptive, not prescriptive sentence. Third, it is reasonable
accurate. Fourth you have yet to show that the sentence had any
influence on anyone.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------
The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt
Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran)
wrote:
>In article <348dcb2...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>>bizarre. everytime ANY medicine is used to cure an illness...it alters
>>the course of 'evolution'. so gene therapy is NO different.
>
>How bizarre. Please explain how penicillin altered the course of
>evolution. How about small pox vaccine - did it alter the course of
>evolution?
>
Sure, to the same extent that any environmental change can be said to
"alter the course" of evolution. It change the selection pressures and
so the mix was (almost certainly) different than it would have been.
>>you just dont understand science jabriol
>
>I guess I don't either.
>
Somehow I doubt that.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > If I thought that 1) you wanted to discuss this and 2) that you have
> > something to bring to the discussion and 3) that you would understand
> > the discussion, then I would do so. Can you show me any evidence to
> > satisfy any of these conditions?
>
>
>I think you just cant, and using excuses.
So?
>
>you cant tell us if morals has evolve can you?
>
>you cant tell us what functionit plays in evolution?
>
>you know it is ok to admit of not knowing.. it is not a sin.
You are not one to talk of sin. I simply do not see any reason to
discuss morality with an admitted bigot like you. You have been
astoundingly offensive. My only purpose in responding to you is to
ensure that people who read your posts know who you are and what you
are like. If you sincerely apologized I would consider changing my
position. But I doubt you can do that since you do not understand what
is wrong with lying and bigotry nor do you understand how astoundingly
offensive you have been.
Ian Samuels
On 10 Dec 1997, Laurence A. Moran wrote:
[snip]
> >I would prefer to say: "has an effect on the future course of evolution",
> >but that aside, is there anything else wrong with this idea?
>
> I don't like the idea that all injuries and diseases alter the frequency
> of genes in the human population. In some cases there may not be a genetic
> component and evolution requires changes in *heritable* characteristics.
Just to interject: I'm no geneticist, but
if an injury or disease kills someone, isn't it
obviously altering the frequency of genes in a
human population? Those who get the disease and
survive pass whatever heritable traits allowed
them to survive on to the next generation. Hence,
for example, the sickle-cell trait that gave
certain West African populations better resistance
to some forms of malaria -- along with any number
of other examples. Or am I way off base here?
> Larry Moran
JABRIOL
Explain hemophilia then.
david.h...@ffvaerotech.ffv.se
On 9 Dec 1997 03:24:01 -0000, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > I go "ape" because you are a bigoted liar.
>
> well at least ypu admit to share your antcestors trait
>
>
> >>I also get upset when you
> > claim that Hitler's actions were moral or that they followed a
> > morality established by science.
>
> Nope, I said by Hitlers standard, and many of his contemporaries believed
> that what he did was moral.
>
> Hitler had nazi scientist help..
>
Dont forget that they were mostly christian nazi scientists...
Why is it that anything evil folks do, you blame on
your stange stawman on evolution
(no matter if they actually claimed to use it or not)
but when the nazists used christianity to commit murder,
then its not christianitys fault?
At least follow your own logic... Now, is the murders
christianitys fault?
If not, why are evolution to blame fo it?
You have built your own strawman of what you think evolution
"gee, anything goes...", then ignore people who point out that
your interpretation is wrong!
You still havent explained why gravity isnt immoral, when
you say evolution is...
DH.
Matt Silberstein
>In article <66ku3u$3h0$1...@dove.qut.edu.au> Chris Ho-Stuart
><host...@fit.qut.edu.au> writes:
>>In talk.atheism Laurence A. Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>> In article <348dcb2...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>>>
>>> >bizarre. everytime ANY medicine is used to cure an illness...it alters
>>> >the course of 'evolution'. so gene therapy is NO different.
>>>
>>> How bizarre. Please explain how penicillin altered the course of
>>> evolution. How about small pox vaccine - did it alter the course of
>>> evolution?
>
>>The notion of "altering the course of evolution" is a little vague,
>>since evolution is not something with a fixed course that can
>>be changed. We can alter the course of a river, because we know
>>where the river flows, and can change it to flow somewhere else.
>>However, the future course of evolution is not something that
>>currently exists to be changed.
>
>Good point. I agree. This wasn't what I objected to in wf3h's posting but
>it's well to keep this point in mind.
>
>>That quibble aside, it seems that with respect to evolution we can say
>>that "altering the course of evolution" is meant to convey the idea of
>>an effect on distributions of heritable characteristics of future
>>populations.
>
>I think this is what wf3h meant. You have to assume that all illnesses
>have an effect on heritable characteristics in order for this to be true.
>Is it known that all bacterial infections selectively kill off those who
>are genetically susceptable? Is it known that smallpox affected the
>frequency of alleles in humans?
>
Now this sounds suspiciously like asking if smallpox causes a
selective pressure. What about affecting the drift? Untreated and
unprevented it kills lots of people. Either their is an allele that
reduces morality, in which case we see selection, or there is not, in
which case we just see a drift change.
>>In this sense, penicillin alters the course of evolution because it
>>changes selective pressures.
>
>Aside from the obvious selective pressures on bacteria (which I don't
>think wf3h was referring to), how does this work? Were humans under
>selective pressure due to bacterial infections before the discovery of
>penicillin?
Isn't death a selective pressure?
>I suppose it's possible that a subset of humans that were
>geneticallly susceptable to bacteria are now being spared but does this
>justify the statement that "ANY medicine ... alters the course of
>evolution"? What about anti-cancer drugs, aspirin, cough syrup, and the
>array of drugs used to treat accident victims in the emergency room?
>
Anti-cancer drugs are a particularly bad choice here. Some cancers do
show a genetic preference. Similarly for aspirin and heart disease.
Yes, the statement that "any medicine" is probably over drawn. All we
would need to do is show a medicine with no affect. But how about "the
vast majority" or "in so far as they are effective"?
>>I would prefer to say: "has an effect on the future course of evolution",
>>but that aside, is there anything else wrong with this idea?
>
>I don't like the idea that all injuries and diseases alter the frequency
>of genes in the human population. In some cases there may not be a genetic
>component and evolution requires changes in *heritable* characteristics.
>
There only needs, for drift as I understand it, for there to be a
genetic difference between the killed and the survivors, even a
coincidental one. It sounds like you are arguing for small selective
pressures.
rog...@mail.auburn.edu
> > (incorrect) assumptions that
> > 1)There is some sort of Platonic Ideal to which we are progressing.
> > 2) We know what that ideal is.
>
>
> I understand what you are saying. However it is common belief that evolution
> indicate progress to a better state, while this may be scientificly
> incorrect.
Then you should be arguing for better, more extensive education on
evolutionary theory, not none.
> on that same coin. science is now involve in gene manipulation to eliminate
> those defective genes that cause birth defects. would you venture to say
> that
> science is advancing Human evolution?
That's medicine trying to help people live longer, healthier
lives. I doubt it will have much impact on the gene pool of the
human population as a whole.
The Young American
============================
--
Posted using Reference.COM http://www.reference.com
Browse, Search and Post Usenet and Mailing list Archive and Catalog.
Sift, Inc. accepts no responsibility for the content of this posting.
Thad Bissett
Daniel Key (dan...@all-keys.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Grow up Jabriol.
: 1) The KKK died out in the early 70's
Unfortunately, this is incorrect. I just recently attended a KKK
rally with a couple black friends of mine (we were on the protest side,
obviously), and the KKK is alive, if a bit sickly. It's amazing, the
trailer trash that you see there, and how they somehow manage to afford
pretty expensive-looking KKK uniforms.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Thad Bissett | I know not with what weapons World War III |
| Wake Forest University | will be fought, but World War IV will be |
| Dept. of Anthropology | fought with sticks and stones. |
| | -Albert Einstein |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence A. Moran
In article <3491c97e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> mat...@ix.netcom.com
>In talk.origins lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>bizarre. everytime ANY medicine is used to cure an illness...it alters
>>>the course of 'evolution'. so gene therapy is NO different.
>>
>>How bizarre. Please explain how penicillin altered the course of
>>evolution. How about small pox vaccine - did it alter the course of
>>evolution?
>>
>"alter the course" of evolution. It change the selection pressures and
>so the mix was (almost certainly) different than it would have been.
You forgot the smiley face. (-:
I just know that your response is not serious. (I hope.)
Larry Moran
Laurence A. Moran
In article <66mj53$n...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> Ian Samuels
<ilsa...@acs.ucalgary.ca> writes:
>On 10 Dec 1997, Laurence A. Moran wrote:
>> >I would prefer to say: "has an effect on the future course of evolution",
>> >but that aside, is there anything else wrong with this idea?
>>
>> I don't like the idea that all injuries and diseases alter the frequency
>> of genes in the human population. In some cases there may not be a genetic
>> component and evolution requires changes in *heritable* characteristics.
>
> Just to interject: I'm no geneticist, but
>if an injury or disease kills someone, isn't it
>obviously altering the frequency of genes in a
>human population?
No. Everybody dies. If injury or disease kills somebody before they can
reproduce then there's a possibility that the frequency of alleles will
be altered. However, if the disease or injury strikes randomly then
evolution is not affected.
>Those who get the disease and
>survive pass whatever heritable traits allowed
>them to survive on to the next generation. Hence,
>for example, the sickle-cell trait that gave
>certain West African populations better resistance
>to some forms of malaria -- along with any number
>of other examples. Or am I way off base here?
You are not off base. If there is a gene that influences survival then
natural selection will come into play. It's not clear to me that those who
die in plane crashes (for example) are less fit for flying than those who
survive. Similarly, some diseases and infections seem to pay little
attention to the fitness of individuals.
Larry Moran
Laurence A. Moran
In article <349ce36e...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> mat...@ix.netcom.com
>In talk.origins lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Laurence A. Moran)
>wrote:
>
>>>> In article <348dcb2...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>>>>
>>>> >bizarre. everytime ANY medicine is used to cure an illness...it alters
>>>> >the course of 'evolution'. so gene therapy is NO different.
>>>>
>>>> How bizarre. Please explain how penicillin altered the course of
>>>> evolution. How about small pox vaccine - did it alter the course of
>>>> evolution?
>>
>>>since evolution is not something with a fixed course that can
>>>be changed. We can alter the course of a river, because we know
>>>where the river flows, and can change it to flow somewhere else.
>>>However, the future course of evolution is not something that
>>>currently exists to be changed.
>>
>>Good point. I agree. This wasn't what I objected to in wf3h's posting but
>>it's well to keep this point in mind.
>>
>>>That quibble aside, it seems that with respect to evolution we can say
>>>that "altering the course of evolution" is meant to convey the idea of
>>>an effect on distributions of heritable characteristics of future
>>>populations.
>>
>>I think this is what wf3h meant. You have to assume that all illnesses
>>have an effect on heritable characteristics in order for this to be true.
>>Is it known that all bacterial infections selectively kill off those who
>>are genetically susceptable? Is it known that smallpox affected the
>>frequency of alleles in humans?
>Now this sounds suspiciously like asking if smallpox causes a
>selective pressure. What about affecting the drift? Untreated and
>unprevented it kills lots of people. Either there is an allele that
>reduces morality, in which case we see selection, or there is not, in
>which case we just see a drift change.
Random genetic drift refers to the fact that some alleles will become
fixed in the population by chance. Why would there be a "change" in drift
if a larger number of people survive? (Assuming that there is no
selection.)
>>>In this sense, penicillin alters the course of evolution because it
>>>changes selective pressures.
>>
>>Aside from the obvious selective pressures on bacteria (which I don't
>>think wf3h was referring to), how does this work? Were humans under
>>selective pressure due to bacterial infections before the discovery of
>>penicillin?
>
>Isn't death a selective pressure?
No. Everybody dies.
>>I suppose it's possible that a subset of humans that were
>>geneticallly susceptable to bacteria are now being spared but does this
>>justify the statement that "ANY medicine ... alters the course of
>>evolution"? What about anti-cancer drugs, aspirin, cough syrup, and the
>>array of drugs used to treat accident victims in the emergency room?
>>
>Anti-cancer drugs are a particularly bad choice here. Some cancers do
>show a genetic preference. Similarly for aspirin and heart disease.
I was thinking of aspirin for headaches. As for anti-cancer drugs, you
would have to show that before these drugs became widely available there
was strong selection against people carrying certain alleles. Presumably,
they died of cancer before they could reproduce. Following the
introduction of anti-cancer drugs the individuals with the cancer alleles
survive and reproduce. While I have no doubt that there may be some
examples of this I suspect that they are rare. Do you believe, for
example, that there is a genetic component to smoking behaviour?
>Yes, the statement that "any medicine" is probably over drawn. All we
>would need to do is show a medicine with no affect. But how about "the
>vast majority" or "in so far as they are effective"?
I'm not sure about "vast majority". It seems to me that we tend to
exaggerate the role of genes in diseases and injuries. In many cases
susceptibility to disease (or injury) depends on whether you are well
nourished or how old you are. That's why flu epidemics affect the poor and
the elderly disproportionately. Is being poor or old due to your genes?
>>>I would prefer to say: "has an effect on the future course of evolution",
>>>but that aside, is there anything else wrong with this idea?
>>
>>I don't like the idea that all injuries and diseases alter the frequency
>>of genes in the human population. In some cases there may not be a genetic
>>component and evolution requires changes in *heritable* characteristics.
>>
>There only needs, for drift as I understand it, for there to be a
>genetic difference between the killed and the survivors, even a
>coincidental one. It sounds like you are arguing for small selective
>pressures.
You are correct. There has to be a genetic difference between those who
die and those who survive. Is there? What about smallpox survivors? Did
milkmaids, on average, carry a different set of genes than those who died?
Drift doesn't play much of a role here unless you are talking about
massive epidemics where the population was reduced to small numbers.
Larry Moran
George & Martha Ann
> : 1) The KKK died out in the early 70's
For any one interested, some interesting summeries of KKK activity in
the past few years, you may want to check:
http://www.splcenter.org/legal/la-2.html
Ol George
Matt Silberstein
Brownian motion.
>>>>In this sense, penicillin alters the course of evolution because it
>>>>changes selective pressures.
>>>
>>>Aside from the obvious selective pressures on bacteria (which I don't
>>>think wf3h was referring to), how does this work? Were humans under
>>>selective pressure due to bacterial infections before the discovery of
>>>penicillin?
>>
>>Isn't death a selective pressure?
>
>No. Everybody dies.
>
But it depends on when they die.
>>>I suppose it's possible that a subset of humans that were
>>>geneticallly susceptable to bacteria are now being spared but does this
>>>justify the statement that "ANY medicine ... alters the course of
>>>evolution"? What about anti-cancer drugs, aspirin, cough syrup, and the
>>>array of drugs used to treat accident victims in the emergency room?
>>>
>>Anti-cancer drugs are a particularly bad choice here. Some cancers do
>>show a genetic preference. Similarly for aspirin and heart disease.
>
>I was thinking of aspirin for headaches. As for anti-cancer drugs, you
>would have to show that before these drugs became widely available there
>was strong selection against people carrying certain alleles. Presumably,
>they died of cancer before they could reproduce. Following the
>introduction of anti-cancer drugs the individuals with the cancer alleles
>survive and reproduce. While I have no doubt that there may be some
>examples of this I suspect that they are rare. Do you believe, for
>example, that there is a genetic component to smoking behaviour?
>
First, human can affect the success of their genes after they
reproduce. I have less chance of reproduction (less money, support,
etc.) if my family dies of cancer even if I don't. Second, it is not
just whether there is a genetic component to smoking (there may be
such for nicotine desire, I have no idea) but also if there is a
component to getting/surviving the cancer. All we are arguing here is
whether there is an affect, not whether the affect is strong and has a
direction.
>>Yes, the statement that "any medicine" is probably over drawn. All we
>>would need to do is show a medicine with no affect. But how about "the
>>vast majority" or "in so far as they are effective"?
>
>I'm not sure about "vast majority". It seems to me that we tend to
>exaggerate the role of genes in diseases and injuries. In many cases
>susceptibility to disease (or injury) depends on whether you are well
>nourished or how old you are. That's why flu epidemics affect the poor and
>the elderly disproportionately. Is being poor or old due to your genes?
>
The answer is probably no for poor and yes for old.
>>>>I would prefer to say: "has an effect on the future course of evolution",
>>>>but that aside, is there anything else wrong with this idea?
>>>
>>>I don't like the idea that all injuries and diseases alter the frequency
>>>of genes in the human population. In some cases there may not be a genetic
>>>component and evolution requires changes in *heritable* characteristics.
>>>
>>There only needs, for drift as I understand it, for there to be a
>>genetic difference between the killed and the survivors, even a
>>coincidental one. It sounds like you are arguing for small selective
>>pressures.
>
>You are correct. There has to be a genetic difference between those who
>die and those who survive. Is there? What about smallpox survivors? Did
>milkmaids, on average, carry a different set of genes than those who died?
>Drift doesn't play much of a role here unless you are talking about
>massive epidemics where the population was reduced to small numbers.
>
I am only arguing the point of "much". Without actual information
about these diseases we can't say more than "any".
Ian Samuels
On 10 Dec 1997, Laurence A. Moran wrote:
> In article <66mj53$n...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca> Ian Samuels
> <ilsa...@acs.ucalgary.ca> writes:
>
> >On 10 Dec 1997, Laurence A. Moran wrote:
>
> >> >I would prefer to say: "has an effect on the future course of evolution",
> >> >but that aside, is there anything else wrong with this idea?
> >>
> >> I don't like the idea that all injuries and diseases alter the frequency
> >> of genes in the human population. In some cases there may not be a genetic
> >> component and evolution requires changes in *heritable* characteristics.
> >
> > Just to interject: I'm no geneticist, but
> >if an injury or disease kills someone, isn't it
> >obviously altering the frequency of genes in a
> >human population?
>
> No. Everybody dies. If injury or disease kills somebody before they can
> reproduce then there's a possibility that the frequency of alleles will
> be altered. However, if the disease or injury strikes randomly then
> evolution is not affected.
The pressure would, of course, have to be
statistically significant. A few random cases of,
say, ebola aren't going to have much of an impact.
Regular large epidemics over a period of
generations, OTOH...
[snip]
Jabriol
> so you are now saying the Theory of Evolution is *not* to blame for the
> Holocaust, this is a bit of a reversal of your original position.
no.. I never Evolution was to blame. I said That the theory of evolution
would justify Hitler action, wether he was aware of it or not. It doesnt
mater.. no matter what anyone did in History.. is part of evolution.
Hitler was my best shot, of proving how senseles the theory of evolution is.
Not as TO knows, But How it is commomly thought of in the real world.
Jabriol
> You are not one to talk of sin. I simply do not see any reason to
> discuss morality with an admitted bigot like you. You have been
> astoundingly offensive. My only purpose in responding to you is to
> ensure that people who read your posts know who you are and what you
> are like.
...more excuses...and frankly quite arrogant on your part, to think that
people cant think for themselves... is that why creation is not taught in
school... because children have the inability to think on their own?
> If you sincerely apologized I would consider changing my
> position. But I doubt you can do that since you do not understand what
> is wrong with lying and bigotry nor do you understand how astoundingly
> offensive you have been.
apologize for what? for asking the necessary questions to understand the
your viewpoint on evolution, and asking the questions... on a objective
basis? Matt, you may have notice, the only one offended was you. everybody
else answered to the Hitler dilema, objectively...
Matt dont go into teaching science. teachers must confront the possibility
that a question may be asked, that he might deemed offensive. It is up to
the teacher to ignore his personal feelings, and teach...
you sir, are not capable of answering question objectively.
you should take a course of emotional control at the Vulcan academy of
science ;)
in any case..you have demostrated that you cant answer the question.
did Morals...and human emotions for that matter, evolved, or did Man
recieve Morals from a higher authority like YHWH?
Did Moses write the Law from God? or did he make it up, as part of the
narural instinct in Humans to survive in tribes?
answers us Matt.... I dont think you can..
Live Long, and prosper...
Wen-King Su
In a previous article "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> writes:
:
;
: > so you are now saying the Theory of Evolution is *not* to blame for the
; > Holocaust, this is a bit of a reversal of your original position.
:
;no.. I never Evolution was to blame. I said That the theory of evolution
:would justify Hitler action, wether he was aware of it or not.
How would evolution justify Hitler's action? Doesn't the theory tells
us that the strength of a species is in its diversity, and therefore one
should promote massive mixed race coupling? Didn't Hitler encourage just
the opposite?
Wen-King Su
; > discuss morality with an admitted bigot like you. You have been
: > astoundingly offensive. My only purpose in responding to you is to
; > ensure that people who read your posts know who you are and what you
: > are like.
;
:...more excuses...and frankly quite arrogant on your part, to think that
;people cant think for themselves... is that why creation is not taught in
:school... because children have the inability to think on their own?
Nothing wrong with that. It is for the same reason we don't expose
children to pornography.
wilkins
|On 8 Dec 1997 23:13:57 -0000, "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
|
|
|>on that same coin. science is now involve in gene manipulation to eliminate
|>those defective genes that cause birth defects. would you venture to say
|>that
|>science is advancing Human evolution?
|
|Yes and no. Yes because those genes will be out of the pool, and no
|because it isn't strictly evolution if we do it ourselves.
No - it's evolution, but perhaps not by natural selection (depending on
whether you think artificial selection is a subset of NS or of a different
kind - I go for the first option), and perhaps not successful in the longer
term. "Advancing" human evolution is a nonsense concept - there is only
what works in the longer term in biological evolution. It's survival of the
most adequate out there.
The real issue is whether these minor changes (and they really are minor in
evolutionary terms) will have any lasting effect on the total genetic
diversity of the human species. I doubt it, but it depends on the potential
importance of the genes (alleles) which are eliminated, and the rate of
mutation that causes those or similar mutations to re-enter the gene pool.
The notion of "advancement" is a moral one, and restricted to cultural and
social change. Things can get better (or worse) genetically in social terms
without making a whole helluva lot of difference to biological evolution.
Contrariwise, social change can do *enormous* damage to the gene pool, not
only of humans but of other species. Genetic manipulation is just an
artificial form of what happens naturally all the time. The only thing to
debate is the cost and the rate.
--
John Wilkins
Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
alan filipski
In article <66nehq$g...@examiner.concentric.net> jab...@cris.com writes:
-
-no.. I never Evolution was to blame. I said That the theory of evolution
-would justify Hitler action, wether he was aware of it or not. It doesnt
The theory of evolution justifies nothing, it just tries to explain
what is.
-mater.. no matter what anyone did in History.. is part of evolution.
-Hitler was my best shot, of proving how senseles the theory of evolution is.
a scientific theory is senseless if people misinterpret it?
Then we might as well give up on science because stupid or dishonest
or ideologically blinded people will misuse it? is that what you're saying?
-Not as TO knows, But How it is commomly thought of in the real world.
Then let's try to improve common understanding.
------------------------------------------------------------
alan filipski
finger for PGP public key
wf...@enter.netxx
On 9 Dec 1997 18:18:37 -0500, nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
>
>That doesn't stop you however from claiming science had nothing to do
>with Hitler's racism.
it didnt; some scientists did. science didnt since the nazi's claims
couldnt be empirically verified...theirs was magic...just like
creationism or any other paranormal ideology.
>
===============================================================
if you want to know who 'wf3h' is, go to the 'qrz' database and
enter 'wf3h' at the prompt
wf...@enter.netxx
On 9 Dec 1997 18:18:43 -0500, nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
>Okay by me. Just to demonstrate again what it means when people here
>say there is no link between evolution theory and racism. Presenting
>professor Plavsic of the university of Sarajevo, she lectured in the
>USA as well.
>
<chuckle> phillip lenard, nobel laureate in physics once said
relativity was impossible since the laws of physics, according to
lenard must be 'racially understood'
sounds like nando agrees with him in respect to biology...
wf...@enter.netxx
On 9 Dec 1997 20:17:53 -0500, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca
(Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>In article <348dcb2...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>
>>bizarre. everytime ANY medicine is used to cure an illness...it alters
>>the course of 'evolution'. so gene therapy is NO different.
>
>How bizarre. Please explain how penicillin altered the course of
>evolution. How about small pox vaccine - did it alter the course of
>evolution?
sure did. because people who would have died were saved. thus natural
selection was not permitted to 'work' in this instance. note that
(lest you attempt to project your values on me) i dont advocate
WITHHOLDING medical treatment. i am the beneficiary of this; i was a
preemie and had pneumonia early in life....medicine saved me...so i
approve of altering the course of evolution.
and dont be so quick to jump the gun on things you dont understand!
Thad Bissett
JABRIOL (Jab...@cris.com) wrote:
: > Just to interject: I'm no geneticist, but
: > if an injury or disease kills someone, isn't it
: > obviously altering the frequency of genes in a
: > survive pass whatever heritable traits allowed
: > them to survive on to the next generation. Hence,
: > for example, the sickle-cell trait that gave
: > certain West African populations better resistance
: > to some forms of malaria -- along with any number
: > of other examples. Or am I way off base here?
: Explain hemophilia then.
Jabriol, some diseases are just mutations. Hemophilia is a perfect
example. Like most mutations, hemophilia reduces the selection fitness of
a person who carries it. It is a recessive trait, which means that it
will manifest in one quarter of the children of a person who is
heterozygous for the allele. Diseases, and anything else, are not
*caused* by evolution. Evolution is an effect, not a cause. A disease,
or a positive trait, does not appear because it helps an species evolve.
It appears, and if it responds to selective pressures, then a species
moves toward a state wherein that trait has a greater frequency in the
population. I think that's the main problem with all creationists when
they try to interpret evolution: you folks seem to forget that evolution
happens as a sort of "fly by the seat of your pants" sort of process.
There *is* no end product of evolution: whatever happens, happens, and if
it produces egotistical, bald apes with a hugely inflated sense of their
own importance, and a little of what they call "intelligence", then it
does. But 20 million years ago, that species was just one of I have no
idea how many different possible outcomes. That has to take into account
environmental changes, fluctuations in the solar radiation reaching the
planet, biological changes, etc (you get the idea). Obviously, the fact
that it happened means that this is the outcome that resulted, but it is
by no means the only possible outcome of evolution up to this time. Also,
remember that all the quotations about the odds of such and such happening
(Miocene hominoids evolving into the first australopithecines, animals
crawling out of the water and standing on fins, etc) are useless. It
happened. Whether the odds were 14 trillion to one, it *happened*, so
saying how the odds are so against it is moot. Why *can't* it happen,
even if the odds are "against" it? there has to be *some* outcome, and
this one is as good as any other, according to probability.
I. Neill Reid
In article <66nehq$g...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com writes...
>
> > so you are now saying the Theory of Evolution is *not* to blame for the
> > Holocaust, this is a bit of a reversal of your original position.
>
And it has been explained to you on many occasions that the
theory of evolution does _not_ justify Hitler's actions. There is no
conscious direction to evolution - it's a reaction to the prevailing
environment, not a conscious altering of that environment to achieve
a particular goal. Hitler had a goal in mind - evolution does not.
Evolution is not "progress" in the caricatured picture of the "rise"
of homo sapiens. Recorded human history is not a record of the
"evolution" of the human race - it's a record of how people have influenced
their surroundings and contemporary and future events - proactive, not
reactive.
>It doesnt
>mater.. no matter what anyone did in History.. is part of evolution.
>Hitler was my best shot, of proving how senseles the theory of evolution is.
And your best shot shows your total incomprehension of the theory you aim
to dispute. Off you go and make sure you're amongst the 144,000 and
leave the rest of us in peace
Neill Reid - i...@dowland.caltech.edu
Paul Andrew King
In article <66l3so$e...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
Ian Samuels <ilsa...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>To an observer who didn't know you're really not a
>racist (and FWIW, I sincerely do believe you're
>well-intentioned), this sort of behaviour could be
>easily misinterpreted.
It's a trap, inherent in the argument he's chosen. He's got to say that
Plavsic's stuff is real science to criticise science. But that means
granting Plavsic the very authority she is attempting to abuse. However,
his comments about history don't fit. If he's trying to prove science
wrong then he has to to prove that Plavsic's claims are genuine science
(which they obviously aren't) and that they are factually wrong. But
claiming that *history* supports Plavsic's claims does nothing to support
the first point and counts *against* the second ! So perhaps he really is
a racist.
--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")
Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply
Paul K.
Paul Andrew King
In article <34ac55da...@news.xs4all.nl>,
nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
>> Thank you once again for publicly
>>promoting Plavsic's delusions as genuine science.
>
>It is genuine science.
And it's genuine history too - or at least that's what *you* would have us
believe. Bigots like you and Plavsic make me sick.
Nando Ronteltap
pa...@nospam.demon.co.uk (Paul Andrew King) wrote:
>> or when you don't recognize Darwin as
>>one of the most influential racists in modern history.
>
>His "racism" - which was entirely normal for a person of his time
How many Chinese of that time thought that way then?
Racism between quotes eh?
> - is
>hardly influential. I doubt you could find someone more opposed to racism
>and other forms of discrimination than Stephen Jay Gould.
Wow that was a neat lawyer trick, the switch. First about Darwin now
about Gould.
AFAIK Gould is very much aware of the dangers towards racism in
evolutionairy theory, and that that's one of the main reasons he
criticises other evolutionists so much.
> Which shows how
>hollow and empty your arguments are.
whatever...
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
i...@deimos.caltech.edu (I. Neill Reid) wrote:
>In article <66nehq$g...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com writes...
>>
>> > so you are now saying the Theory of Evolution is *not* to blame for the
>> > Holocaust, this is a bit of a reversal of your original position.
>>
>>no.. I never Evolution was to blame. I said That the theory of evolution
>>would justify Hitler action, wether he was aware of it or not.
>
> And it has been explained to you on many occasions that the
>theory of evolution does _not_ justify Hitler's actions. There is no
>conscious direction to evolution - it's a reaction to the prevailing
>environment, not a conscious altering of that environment to achieve
>a particular goal. Hitler had a goal in mind - evolution does not.
>Evolution is not "progress" in the caricatured picture of the "rise"
>of homo sapiens. Recorded human history is not a record of the
>"evolution" of the human race - it's a record of how people have influenced
>their surroundings and contemporary and future events - proactive, not
>reactive.
Except for this little group of people on the internet, the relation
between evolutionairy science and nazi biology is well established
among historians. Atheist, christian, jewish, evolutionist,
creationist, or otherwise.
"Even more than in biology, Haeckel's "biogenetic law" was adapted
uncritically by many of the newly forming social sciences. Early
anthropologists espoused the view that other cultures were "primitive"
in the embryological sense in that their development had stopped short
of our own. Indeed, the word "underdeveloped" is still used to define
such a culture. Since evolution was the successive adding on to the
top of the tree, the different races could be ordered from top to
bottom. (Indeed, they would have to be ordered linearly, since this
was not a branched-chain model. This idea that that races could be
ranked in a linear fashion is said to have given scientific "validity"
to the racial prejudices that culminated in the genocidal biopolicy of
the Third Reich. (For details, see Gasman, 1971; Gould, 1977a,
b; Stein, 1988.) Hitler paraphrased much of Haeckel's works in his
Mein Kampf. Indeed, according to Glassman, Hitler did not invent any
of his biopolicy, because it was all there in the books of Haeckel and
his followers."
Author of this notes that Haeckel has added linear classification to
Darwin's theory, however it is clear from that infamous quote that
Darwin himself thought in terms of linear classification among peoples
and apes.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will
no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian
and the gorilla." (Darwin, Descent of man)
Darwin uses a value judgement -civilization- to classify species. Here
he ties civilization to race and species, as opposed to tying it to
beliefs, aspirations, principles or other. The caucasian is high
civilization, the baboon is low civilization . This is no
insignificant quote, he gives this as a retort to the common criticism
as to why not many intermediate species are found. His answer here is
that the more civilized species or races exterminate and replace the
less civilized species or races. This is presented as a process in
nature which has been going on for a long time. It spans the time a
baboon is supposed to have evolved to something like a caucasian.
Darwin imagines massive extermination and replacement of less
civilized species and races, by succesively higher civilized races or
species.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>In talk.origins nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
>>mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>>>In talk.origins nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) wrote:
>>
>>>>And you falsify history when you say nazi race ideology had nothing to
>>>>do with science of evolution,
>>>
>>>My claim, which is supported historically,
>>
>>rubbish
>>
>Then show us the quotes where they use the Theory of Evolution (a
>scientific "doctrine") as support. And explain how this was more
>significant than the political and religious sources.
You are still making a strawman claim that only the most significant
factor counts. I have given you the reference to "Darwin, Deutschland
und die Juden", reference to Haeckel, spokesman for Darwin in Germany
and ancestor of nazi-biology. Reference to a paper which deals with
racism from all angles including scientific racism. I honestly can't
find *any* historian which simply dismisses the role of science of
evolution as contributing in nazi-ideology.
>>>"Nothing to do with" is a rather broad claim.
>>
>>That doesn't stop you however from claiming science had nothing to do
>>with Hitler's racism.
>>
>ROTFLMAO. I explicitly say that I am not making that claim and you
>turn around and say I do. I am not saying that it had "nothing to do"
>with it. I am saying it was meaningless as a causal factor.
This is what you said elsewhere in talking about Hitler.
"No, we think that science had nothing to do with his racism just like
it has nothing to do with yours."
If you can't attribute responsibility to science here, obviously you
will *never* hold science responsible for anything bad.
>>>>or when you don't recognize Darwin as
>>>>one of the most influential racists in modern history.
>>>
>>>You have yet to establish in the slightest that Darwin was a racist.
>>>Then you would have to show that his racism was in some way
>>>influential.
>>
>>I can do this over and over same as with Plavsic.
>>
>>"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
>>civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
>>the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
>>anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will
>>no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies
>>will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
>>civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape
>>as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian
>>and the gorilla." (Darwin, Descent of man)
>>
>>This AFAIK widely publicized book, is what you mean by not the
>>slightest evidence of Darwin being an influential racist.
>
>First off, this is the exact same sentence that you used before.
It's useless to bring up more when you don't accept this as evidence.
>Second, it does not show in any way he was racist.
Unfuckingbelievable
Nando
Brent Howatt
Jabriol (jab...@cris.com) wrote:
: > so you are now saying the Theory of Evolution is *not* to blame for the
: > Holocaust, this is a bit of a reversal of your original position.
: no.. I never Evolution was to blame. I said That the theory of evolution
: would justify Hitler action, wether he was aware of it or not. It doesnt
: mater.. no matter what anyone did in History.. is part of evolution.
: Hitler was my best shot, of proving how senseles the theory of evolution is.
: Not as TO knows, But How it is commomly thought of in the real world.
Let's see if I have this right...
1. The theory of evolution justifies Hitler.
2. However, this is not the actual theory of evolution, but popular
misconceptions of it, which are not really the theory of evolution.
3. Even though Hitler may have been unaware of these popular
misconceptions, they were controlling his mind.
4. These popular misconceptions have controlled all historical actions
including Clara Barton's founding the Red Cross, Napolean's march to
Moscow and the Punic Wars.
5. Since these allegations about Hitler are: a.) unproven, b.) really
stupid, c.) inconsistant with the known history of our planet, and d.)
based on what Jabriol acknowledges is a strawman argument, Jabriol feels
he has proven that evolution is "senseless".
In my opinion, the only remaining question to decide is whether Jabriol
is under-medicated or over-medicated.
--
H. Brent Howatt, Dir. of Ins. Svcs. | The first days are the hardest days,
Humboldt County Office of Education | Don't you worry any more.
Eureka, California | When life looks like Easy Street,
Behind the Redwood Curtain | There is danger at your door.
============================================================================
hho...@humboldt1.com PGP public key by FINGER or e-mail
bho...@humboldt.k12.ca.us http://www.humboldt.k12.ca.us
Wen-King Su
In a previous article nr...@xs4all.nl (Nando Ronteltap) writes:
:
;i...@deimos.caltech.edu (I. Neill Reid) wrote:
:
;>In article <66nehq$g...@examiner.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com writes...
;>> > so you are now saying the Theory of Evolution is *not* to blame for the
:>> > Holocaust, this is a bit of a reversal of your original position.
;>>
:>>no.. I never Evolution was to blame. I said That the theory of evolution
;>>would justify Hitler action, wether he was aware of it or not.
;> And it has been explained to you on many occasions that the
:>theory of evolution does _not_ justify Hitler's actions. There is no
;>conscious direction to evolution - it's a reaction to the prevailing
:>environment, not a conscious altering of that environment to achieve
;>a particular goal. Hitler had a goal in mind - evolution does not.
:>Evolution is not "progress" in the caricatured picture of the "rise"
;>of homo sapiens. Recorded human history is not a record of the
:>"evolution" of the human race - it's a record of how people have influenced
;>their surroundings and contemporary and future events - proactive, not
:>reactive.
;
:Except for this little group of people on the internet, the relation
;between evolutionairy science and nazi biology is well established
:among historians. Atheist, christian, jewish, evolutionist,
;creationist, or otherwise.
Then why are you unable to establish any instances where Hitler promoted
inter-racial coupling -- what evolution says would strengthen a species?
Why are you unable to explain why Hitler acted to weaken the population
by eliminating Jews?
;"Even more than in biology, Haeckel's "biogenetic law" was adapted
:uncritically by many of the newly forming social sciences. Early
;anthropologists espoused the view that other cultures were "primitive"
:in the embryological sense in that their development had stopped short
;of our own. Indeed, the word "underdeveloped" is still used to define
:such a culture. Since evolution was the successive adding on to the
;top of the tree, the different races could be ordered from top to
:bottom.
You are wrong. Evolution says difference "races" that lives today are
the different leaves of the tree.
Ian Samuels
On 11 Dec 1997, Paul Andrew King wrote:
> In article <66l3so$e...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
> Ian Samuels <ilsa...@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
> >To an observer who didn't know you're really not a
> >racist (and FWIW, I sincerely do believe you're
> >well-intentioned), this sort of behaviour could be
> >easily misinterpreted.
>
> It's a trap, inherent in the argument he's
> chosen. He's got to say that Plavsic's stuff is
> real science to criticise science. But that means
> granting Plavsic the very authority she is attempting to abuse.
Exactly.
However,
> his comments about history don't fit. If he's trying to prove science
> wrong then he has to to prove that Plavsic's claims are genuine science
> (which they obviously aren't) and that they are factually wrong. But
> claiming that *history* supports Plavsic's claims does nothing to support
> the first point and counts *against* the second ! So perhaps he really is
> a racist.
I'd like to think not. My suspicion is
he's just plain inept and got tangled up in his
own nets. And he's also shown that he can't
admit he's wrong, adjust his perceptions or accept
the existence of flaws in his arguments (how many
times has he posted that Darwin quote now?) -- so
arguing with him, save as a form of entertainment,
has gotten a bit pointless.
[sinp]
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > You are not one to talk of sin. I simply do not see any reason to
> > discuss morality with an admitted bigot like you. You have been
> > astoundingly offensive. My only purpose in responding to you is to
> > ensure that people who read your posts know who you are and what you
> > are like.
>
>...more excuses...and frankly quite arrogant on your part, to think that
>people cant think for themselves...
And quite astounding of you to think I said that. I am not telling
them what to think at all, I am making sure people are aware of you
history of comments. There thoughts are clearly their own.
> is that why creation is not taught in
>school... because children have the inability to think on their own?
>
No.
>
>
> > If you sincerely apologized I would consider changing my
> > position. But I doubt you can do that since you do not understand what
> > is wrong with lying and bigotry nor do you understand how astoundingly
> > offensive you have been.
>
>
>apologize for what?
For lying. For misrepresenting. For accusations of racism. For
offensive comments comparing evolution accepters (including me) to
Nazis.
>for asking the necessary questions to understand the
>your viewpoint on evolution,
Have you asked a single question for which you were interested in an
answer?
>and asking the questions... on a objective
>basis? Matt, you may have notice, the only one offended was you. everybody
>else answered to the Hitler dilema, objectively...
>
No, as a matter of fact I did not notice that. Perhaps because your
concept of "objective" is ridiculous.
>Matt dont go into teaching science. teachers must confront the possibility
>that a question may be asked, that he might deemed offensive. It is up to
>the teacher to ignore his personal feelings, and teach...
>
ROTFLMAO
>you sir, are not capable of answering question objectively.
>
ROTFLMAOASTD
>you should take a course of emotional control at the Vulcan academy of
>science ;)
>
>
>in any case..you have demostrated that you cant answer the question.
>
>did Morals...and human emotions for that matter, evolved, or did Man
>recieve Morals from a higher authority like YHWH?
>
Sorry, but as I said I am not interested in discussing this until you
show some semblance of engaging in reasonable discourse. And until you
show some understanding of 1) science in general, 2) evolution, and 3)
the English language.
>Did Moses write the Law from God? or did he make it up, as part of the
>narural instinct in Humans to survive in tribes?
>
Why not go to an archaeology group where this would be on-topic.
>answers us Matt.... I dont think you can..
>
>Live Long, and prosper...
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins "Jabriol" <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > so you are now saying the Theory of Evolution is *not* to blame for the
> > Holocaust, this is a bit of a reversal of your original position.
>
>no.. I never Evolution was to blame. I said That the theory of evolution
>would justify Hitler action, wether he was aware of it or not.
Actually you claimed much more than that. But even this claim is just
plain wrong. The Theory of Evolution does not provide *justification*
for any action at all, no more than does any other scientific theory.
Explanations are not justifications.
> It doesnt
>mater.. no matter what anyone did in History.. is part of evolution.
>Hitler was my best shot, of proving how senseles the theory of evolution is.
>
There is something senseless around here, that's for sure. I just
wonder why you object to something that you know so little about.
>Not as TO knows, But How it is commomly thought of in the real world.
Should we also discuss how JWs are commonly thought of?
Laurence A. Moran
In article <348f5efe...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>On 9 Dec 1997 20:17:53 -0500, lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca
>(Laurence A. Moran) wrote:
>
>>In article <348dcb2...@news.enter.net> wf...@enter.netxx writes:
>>
>>>bizarre. everytime ANY medicine is used to cure an illness...it alters
>>>the course of 'evolution'. so gene therapy is NO different.
>>
>>How bizarre. Please explain how penicillin altered the course of
>>evolution. How about small pox vaccine - did it alter the course of
>>evolution?
>
>sure did. because people who would have died were saved. thus natural
>selection was not permitted to 'work' in this instance.
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that those who died from smallpox
carried some sort of genetic marker that made them sensitive to the virus?
In order for natural selection to be at work there has to be some
heritable component that is selected. Do you have any references to the
scientific literature that support your claim?
>and dont be so quick to jump the gun on things you dont understand!
I am looking forward to having you educate me in this area. Your earlier
statements don't seem to be consistent with my understanding of evolution.
Please tell me more about your version of evolution.
Larry Moran