quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim
In that case, you should know about what its current explanatory power is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Agahnim
1: I bring up the new functions that evolved in bacteria, which appear to be an example of what you said you would consider a refutation of Behe’s claims.

quote:


You said those don’t count,

quote:

because they’re the result of regulatory mutations rather than coding mutations.

quote:

2: I bring up the drug resistance in HIV because that’s an example of a similar change caused by a coding mutation.

quote:

You ask me why I’m bringing up this new topic, rather than discussing one in depth after you’ve already made it clear it doesn’t qualify as what you were asking for.

quote:


3: I answer your question.

quote:


And now, because my answer was in response to your own request rather than what I brought up in my OP, you accuse me of “meandering logic”, being unable to stay on one topic for more than a few sentences, and everything else you’re saying here.

quote:


You did this once before in our debate about bird origins, where you accused me of bringing up a “red herring” when it was the topic I’d been discussing with the other posters there before you began participating in that thread. Why is it that you can bring up whatever sort of off-topic challenge you want in any thread, such as asking me why I appear more interested in “scoring points” than anything else, but whenever I answer it—or even attempt to return the thread to its original topic—you claim that my posts are off-topic?

quote:


But I fully expect you to react to that the same way that you’ve reacted here

quote:

Please don’t think you’re able to answer my questions to Jhud for him. You aren’t.

quote:

It isn’t just about geology. How about the several threads here from the past couple weeks about how ecosystems would have functioned if animals originally never ate meat, or whether animals such as cats would be able to survive without it? You said you were a biology major in college; don’t tell me you have nothing to say about those topics.

quote:

You don’t find the subject interesting—that’s the key here. Even though your stated goal is to defend what you think is true, you’d rather do that about very small disagreements in an area that you care about, while ignoring much larger ones that don’t matter to you.

quote:

What you post about in other sections of this forum is irrelevant, since I’m only talking about what you choose to debate about in the science section.

quote:

Let’s review how this discussion went:

1: I bring up the new functions that evolved in bacteria, which appear to be an example of what you said you would consider a refutation of Behe’s claims. You said those don’t count, because they’re the result of regulatory mutations rather than coding mutations.

quote:

2: I bring up the drug resistance in HIV because that’s an example of a similar change caused by a coding mutation. You ask me why I’m bringing up this new topic, rather than discussing one in depth after you’ve already made it clear it doesn’t qualify as what you were asking for.

quote:

You did this once before in our debate about bird origins, where you accused me of bringing up a “red herring” when it was the topic I’d been discussing with the other posters there before you began participating in that thread. Why is it that you can bring up whatever sort of off-topic challenge you want in any thread, such as asking me why I appear more interested in “scoring points” than anything else, but whenever I answer it—or even attempt to return the thread to its original topic—you claim that my posts are off-topic?

quote:

If you’d prefer that what I brought up in answer to your question be the topic of a new thread, I’ll post one. But I fully expect you to react to that the same way that you’ve reacted here, by bringing up an irrelevant point and then attacking the other person either for answering it, or for going back to the topic that was being discussed previously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:


I’ve mentioned here once before why I think Intelligent Design doesn’t make proper use of the scientific method, so in other words I don’t think it’s science.

What makes you the ultimate authority over what constitutes science?

quote:

Why should you determine what gets taught in classes and what constitutes science? Let it be taught and let the students decide whether or not it's science.

quote:

It seems evolutionists like to claim things like, "newer evidence has strengthened evolution," but I have not seen substantiation of such claims.

quote:

It's not just Agahnim's opinion. If anyone has 'ultimate authority' over science, it is the community of scientists who, with near-unanimity, reject ID as science.

quote:

The discovery of DNA and genetics offered a concrete mechanism for the variation and heredity that Darwin hypothesized. It also eliminated naive Lamarckism as a competing theory. Evolution is much stronger for having this additional evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
The discovery of DNA and genetics offered a concrete mechanism for the variation and heredity that Darwin hypothesized. It also eliminated naive Lamarckism as a competing theory. Evolution is much stronger for having this additional evidence.

quote:


Blyth had discussed natural selection, but Eiseley didn’t realize that most biologists did so in the generations before Darwin. Natural selection ranked as a standard item in biological discourse – but with a crucial difference from Darwin’s version: the usual interpretation invoked natural selection as part of a larger argument for created permanency. Natural selection, in this negative formulation, acted only to preserve the type, constant and inviolate, by eliminating extreme variants and unfit individuals who threatened to degrade the essence of created form. Paley himself presents the following variant of this argument, doing so to refute (in later pages) a claim that modern species preserve the good designs winnowed from a much broader range of initial creations after natural selection had eliminated the less viable forms: “The hypothesis teaches, that every possible variety of being hath, at one time or other, found its way into existence (by what cause of in what manner is not said), and that those which were badly formed, perished”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
The discovery of DNA and genetics offered a concrete mechanism for the variation and heredity that Darwin hypothesized. It also eliminated naive Lamarckism as a competing theory. Evolution is much stronger for having this additional evidence.

Lamarckism was an evolutionist concept. It was creationists who originally came up with the notion of Natural selection, Darwin simply stole it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth#Blyth.27s_view_of_natural_selection

quote:


Blyth had discussed natural selection, but Eiseley didn’t realize that most biologists did so in the generations before Darwin. Natural selection ranked as a standard item in biological discourse – but with a crucial difference from Darwin’s version: the usual interpretation invoked natural selection as part of a larger argument for created permanency. Natural selection, in this negative formulation, acted only to preserve the type, constant and inviolate, by eliminating extreme variants and unfit individuals who threatened to degrade the essence of created form. Paley himself presents the following variant of this argument, doing so to refute (in later pages) a claim that modern species preserve the good designs winnowed from a much broader range of initial creations after natural selection had eliminated the less viable forms: “The hypothesis teaches, that every possible variety of being hath, at one time or other, found its way into existence (by what cause of in what manner is not said), and that those which were badly formed, perished”

http://wiki-trust.cse.ucsc.edu/index.php/Edward_Blyth#endnote_Shermer

quote:

Interesting... that version of 'natural selection' is really exactly analogous to Hitler's techniques, and many of his writings in mein kampf on species. Any breeding outside of 'kind' or extreme variation introduced weakness, and the organisms would eventually become unfit. See the parallels between his plan now? Aryan's? Jews? Master race. Dont mix kinds...

So we get to say creationists caused the Holocaust now? Yay! ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Interesting... that version of 'natural selection' is really exactly analogous to Hitler's techniques, and many of his writings in mein kampf on species. Any breeding outside of 'kind' or extreme variation introduced weakness, and the organisms would eventually become unfit. See the parallels between his plan now? Aryan's? Jews? Master race. Dont mix kinds...

So we get to say creationists caused the Holocaust now? Yay! ;)

Well, at least we have an admission by an evolutionist here that the popularized notion of natural selection was fundamental to Nazism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Actually, there is some evidence that Lamarck may be making a come back thanks to genetics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Of course, never mind that it bears no resemblance to natural selection according to Darwin. Aww heck, but who cares? Lets just say Darwin caused the Holocaust anyhow..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Lamarckism was an evolutionist concept.

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
So? I agree it was a scientific theory that was in serious competition with Darwinian evolution. The evidence came in, and Lamarckism was weakened nigh unto death, while modern evolutionary theory (based initially on Darwin's theory) was strengthened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, at least we have an admission by an evolutionist here that the popularized notion of natural selection was fundamental to Nazism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, at least we have an admission by an evolutionist here that the popularized notion of natural selection was fundamental to Nazism.

It's amazing how evolutionists seem to only admit to something if they think its in their convenience. Otherwise, they deny it up and down. Truth to them seems to be based on what supports their presuppositions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Any breeding outside of 'kind' or extreme variation introduced weakness,

quote:

Are you kidding here? I pointed out how the natural selection you appear to hold as more correct was similar to Hitler's beliefs on species and racial purity.

I'm not going to sit here and say either way that Darwin or the creationist natural selection caused the Holocaust or was even the catalyst. Its creationists that make that claim. I simply used your own logic against you, in that if your going to claim natural selection, you also get to claim the Holocaust if you want to remain consistent with creationist arguments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Are you kidding here? I pointed out how the natural selection you appear to hold as more correct was similar to Hitler's beliefs on species and racial purity.

I'm not going to sit here and say either way that Darwin or the creationist natural selection caused the Holocaust or was even the catalyst. Its creationists that make that claim. I simply used your own logic against you, in that if your going to claim natural selection, you also get to claim the Holocaust if you want to remain consistent with creationist arguments.

quote:

Actually, I was in the bird origins thread before you were. And I specifically spent several posts discussing a specific aspect of the thread dealing with bird origins, which was presumably the topic of the thread (thus the title of the thread, What are birds?) you were the one who dissembled into an ID discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Are you kidding here? I pointed out how the natural selection you appear to hold as more correct was similar to Hitler's beliefs on species and racial purity.

I'm not going to sit here and say either way that Darwin or the creationist natural selection caused the Holocaust or was even the catalyst. Its creationists that make that claim. I simply used your own logic against you, in that if your going to claim natural selection, you also get to claim the Holocaust if you want to remain consistent with creationist arguments.

I don't think Christians claim that Darwin caused the Holocaust, we claim that inasmuch as Christianity was responsible for the crusades, evolution was responsible for the Holocaust. We generally think that people/leaders will do whatever is in their interest regardless of religion or metaphysical belief, they simply use evolution or Christianity or some other religion as an excuse to justify their actions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Not all Christians claim Darwin caused the Holocaust, but many creationists do implicate him directly:
http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/preview.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

I edited post 70 slightly

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Not all Christians claim Darwin caused the Holocaust, but many creationists do implicate him directly:
http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/preview.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301

I do not think that we should blame evolution for the Holocast, but at the same time one should not blame Christianity for any social ills as well.

quote:

I should have been more specific. I don’t mean before you were participating in any part of the thread, but before you got involved in the discussion that took up basically the entire second page, in which I was challenging Bettawrekonize and then you to provide an example of a specific anatomical structure which had been found whose existence had been predicted by creationism or ID but not evolution. Neither you nor Betta could provide one, and eventually we got onto the topic of whether the feathers found in amber could be considered “proto-feathers” or not. I didn’t really want to discuss that, but I answered your points about at anyway because you seemed to consider it an important aspect of the debate. But on the last page, when I tried to get back to the point I had been making with you and Bettawrekonize before you started challenging me about what the feathers in amber were, you called it a “red herring”. Do you remember what I’m talking about now?