[Moderator Hat: ON]
Avalongod said:
You’re coming real close to the “that’s a no-no” line. Step carefully, or step into the Pit.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
I’m just reminded why I usually stay out of GD, but I’d love to reply to your last post if I thought it made any sense, it reads like a typical “I see what I want to see and I will fire off an angry reply” than anything resembling a discussion.
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I couldn’t help but think that the Department of Education should take a look at this thread. Here we have seven or eight intelligent, knowledgable, articulate, (mostly) patient posters going to extraordinary lengths to explain the basics of evolution without compensation of any kind. If only this information was being directed at a reasonably intelligent 12 year old, we’d might be on to something.
Shag: 10th grade science!! My lord, we are in the presence of an scholar here, folks. Damn, those graduate courses I took must have skipped all that complicated stuff*. 
Shag, I’m going to be nice now. No reputable Scientist doubts that Evolution happened, and is still happening. Evolution is as much a fact as the Earth going around the Sun. But the HOW of Evolution, that is a very different kettle of fish, indeed. Some of the biggest experts disagree- violently.
*try Population Biology, when the best computer around has tubes.
I am picking and choosing because of the unexpectedly huge reply to my queries (whew).
The theory of evolution, which started out as a religious belief shared by many Native Americans, is a relatively young as a scientific theory. Darwin, as noted before, was marvelled by the daunting task in filling out the gaps in his theories, and those of others. Today the gaps are still there. Maybe they will be filled in time, how long, who knows? The answers one way or another are out there, waiting for the right questions. That is why I ask questions.
Thank you for clarifying some of my misconceptions. I am not quite supporting the theory of trans-species evolution yet because of the gaps I mentioned above, but, unlike many Creationists and others who don’t believe in evolution, I will grant the multiple theories related to it more time to gather and analyze more evidence, in order to show once and for all a more unified theory of this aspect of evolution. Would a troll say this?
I am arguing some of your points in favor of your theories, because well, “if you don’t know your opponents’ arguments, you can never fully know your own”.
Happy I am that many here think that the earth, its history and its biological diversity, is not just a random event in the life of the universe, that there is something more to it, be it God’s grace or something else. This hopefully can answer many of your posts.
Now to toadspittle: I know that bad things do exist. The ideas of applied Social Darwinism are examples. Don’t think that this evil side-effect of the theory of evolution isn’t happening today? Witness the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the sentencing to death Blacks and Hispanics in Texas because they were deemed “dangerous” just because of their race. The diagnosis is sometimes done by the same psychologist that requested the sparing of life of the murderers of Mr. Byrd. Witness the wars in Yugoslavia area, engaged by genetically identical people but with each believing superior to the other. Or the hostile takeover of land in Zimbabwe by those who think they are holier than thou, egged on by a leader more concerned about his political well-being than the well-being of his countrymen.
As a computer scientist who happened to be Black, I am concerned that some would take a callous approach towards some the evil effects of science and scientific theory. It doesn’t mean I would question again the validity of the science itself. I admit that I stretched my rhetoric in trying to void a theory because of what came about as a result of it. What it does mean that I will continue to speak about its wrongful appications of it. These are ideas that you believe used very wrongly and catastrophically. The defense of the positive uses for the theories, and the repudiation of the maleovant derivations, should if anything be more vigorously come from those willing to defend the original theories.
I was wondering: How can we positively apply the theories of evolution in our lives, without unduly exploiting others?
capacitor said:
What? That’s a new one on me. But, OK, what if you’re right? So what? Who cares how it started, considering the huge volumes of evidence for it now?
What? It’s a lot older than quantum mechanics (for one thing) and I don’t hear Bible-thumpers whining about QM.
Wrong. There are many lines of fossils showing quite well how the animals evolved. The “gaps” you mentioned will never be filled enough to make creationists happy. If I have fossil A and fossil B, with B a little different from A, and I find fossil C, which fits between A and B, does that make creationists happy? No. They just complain that now they need a fossil between A & C and C & B.
It doesn’t matter if it is happening or not. What people choose to do in the social realm has nothing to do with the scientific fact and theories of evolution.
Much of which is caused by religion, and none of which is caused by evolution.
Which has nothing to do with evolution. Are you trying to link every problem in the world to evolution? You’re really making yourself look silly.
And, to my eyes, you’re still stretching.
Fine. Then do it in a different thread. Heck, start a new one. But if you’re going to talk about its wrongful applications, at least make sure you’re talking about the right thing – because in this very message, you’ve used some examples that have nothing to do with what you claim to be talking about!
We do it every day. We have genetically-modified crops (OK, some may say that’s not a “positive” application, but I think it is). We have genetically-based drugs. We use evolutionary biology in medicine. Etc. Notice that all of these are scientific uses, not social ones.
It does matter if scientific theories are being misused for negative social and political purposes. Maybe the situations I mentioned doesn’t and should not involve your theories. However, the theories, instead of being used as a commentary on human behavior, are instead being used to justify the continuation of negative and catastrophic human behavior. Ethnic cleansing and racial injustice, evolution can explain the development of such. However, it should be presented as a challenge for us to overcome it, not as Social Darwinists present it, as a way to justify the brutal maintenance of social division. The theories of evolution were never meant to be used that way.
Thank you David B and others, for the information you presented to me.
Personally, I find the most troubling thing about wars between genetically identical people to be the possibility that such “clone wars” will wipe out nearly all the Jedi as a result.
-Ben
Capacitor? Did you read my post on speciation? If not do you want me to rewrite it?
Anyway, I believe people simply took the ideas of social darwinism and used them as an excuse to do what they have always done. Human beings are consumed by their own greed. We do what is best for ourselves. There are few of us whom are martyrs. Do you really think that war is about a reason? No, it’s always about something getting something from something else. It’s always to advance that thing’s position. Especially religious wars. It’s to spread one’s relgion and to gain more power for that relgion. Crusades anyone?
whoa,
Sorry 2sense. THat “goto first unread response” thing doesn’t work very well. I totally skipped over your post.
Anyway, I meant to say that deevolution does happen. That is if you think of it as things becoming LESS complex.
Ag, I forgot to add something.
Daniel, do you take my views with any grain of salt? Do I seem educated in this subject? if yes, then I ask you, how old do you think I am?
Bored: I’m confused. Did I post in response to any of your comments? Your comments are not as technical & sophisticated as our scientists here, but you ask good questions, and make a few good points. Does it really matter how old you are?
You made a comment about some 10th grader. I’m a junior.
That was my point.
No, bored, I made a comment about someone mentioning his 10th grade science class as if it was a big deal. Hell, back before Darwin, I was in a 10th grade science class too.
Nothing wrong with being young, except that it is wasted on those who cannot appreciate it.
Bored2001, sorry to neglect to address you by name. Your contribution is lso valuable.
Yes, humans with malevolence in their hearts will use any excuse, or none, to justify their actions. However, Social Darwinism, however, as it is now have become a very stong weapon used by these humans against the oppressed. If we can successfully take that weapon away from them, it will help expose them for who they are.
I am not saying that the forwarding of the ideas themselves are to be blamed for its continued perpetuation today, but that its continued, fallacy-based misapplication will eventually befall us all if it is not held in continuous and vigilant check.
So basically you’re saying if we took social darwinism away from hitler then the holocaust wouldn’t have happened? the problem I see with this is that even without darwin that idea would have probably reared it’s ugly head anyway.
Also, as of yet you’ve still yet to comment on my explanation of the “gaps(intermediate species)” in the fossil record.
If that is the case, we sure have found a lot of 30,000 year old deformed skulls with exactly the same characteristics
I don’t need to know Neanderthal man’s skin color to know that he had strong jaw muscles connected to a ridge on top of his skull.His skull tells me that.No imagination required.
a magazine called Origins found only on the web, and featuring such articles as “Creationists of the World, Unite!” Nice source,dipshit.
please provide an issue # or date, and title of the article. I couldn’t find mention of this on their website.
Well no shit!Australopithecus afarensis doesn’t resemble * Homo sapiens*?Maybe that’s because they are over 60,000 years apart. I suppose some changes could have happened in that time.
Please cite your reference for this.
Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the “Acknowledgements” of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: “I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years.”
yeah?What else did he say? You wouldn’t take a quote out of context, would you?
shagadelicmysteryman, I’m finished with you. Do your own research instead of regurgitating someone else’s half-truths.
capacitor said:
It “matters” as far as those purposes go. It does not “matter” as far as whether or not the scientific theories themselves are valid. Like I said, if you want to talk about the misuse of such theories, it’d be best to start a new thread to avoid confusion.
You’re quite welcome.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Chiefwahoo said:
Cool it. You want to toss around insults, take it to the Pit. Not here.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Chief Wahoo. Tisk, tisk, tisk. You’ve given me something to work with (not that i needed it.)
You said:
If that is the case, we sure have found a lot of 30,000 year old deformed skulls with exactly the same characteristics.
Which could have explained an out break of a disease that caused deformities, if they have found a lot of them.
You also said:
I don’t need to know Neanderthal man’s skin color to know that he had strong jaw muscles connected to a ridge on top of his skull.His skull tells me that.No imagination required.
Now, if you would have re-read the post, you would have seen that I was stating that scientists have made Neanderthal man into an ape man. I said nothing about him not having strong jaw muscles. By the way, they didn’t find muscles.
Now you asked what New Scientist I was referring to.
It was: New Scientist “Jive Talk” by John Gribbin, June 24,1982, pg. 873.
I did flub up on the Origins thing. It wasn’t a magazine I was referring to. It was a book and the information I was referring to was on page 52.
Now for N.J Berrill, I did take that from context.
“The Origin of Vertebrates” by N.J Berrill, 1955, pg.10.
Neanderthal man’s skull was deformed by arthritis deformans. It is in the book “Darwin on Trial” by Phillip Johnson, Washington, D.C, Regenery Gateway, 1991.
If you want to know where he got it, write him.
Francis Hitching does write TV scripts for history shows and how to’s. You’ve inadvertantly disavowed one of your own. He believes in evolution, but disagrees with Darwinism. I only quoted him to show that even he doubts it some. If you wish to find out for yourself read:
“The Neck of The Giraffe” Ticknor and Fields, New Haven, Conneticut, 1982. pg.4, paperback, pg.12 hardback.
And finally concerning Australopithecus. If changes occured over 60,000 years, and Australopithecus does resemble modern apes, why did only half of them evolve into humans or something else and the other half stay the same?
So, Chief, you’re not done with me. And to Danielinthewolvesden, please state where exactly I said I was a scholar?? I mentioned 10th grade science because that’s where I learned about “The Origins of Species”. If you would notice that is the only time I’ve referred to my 10th grade Biology class. I’m sure you have no Ph.D either, “Dr. Danielinthewolvesden”.