Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Jose Fly]

Your logic is flawed, just like your beliefs.

That you can only muster that as a response says it all.

 

[Jose Fly]

The natural selection is THIS CASE did nothing to the inheritable characteristics.

So you agree that the peppered moths examples illustrates natural selection in action. Good.

No, it did NOT. The alleles for BOTH COLORS were in BOTH COLORS of LIVING moths.

I've not seen any indication of that. The creation.com link you provided states "Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind."

Are they wrong?

 

[Right Divider]

That you can only muster that as a response says it all.

That you can only muster that as a response says it all.

 

[Right Divider]

So you agree that the peppered moths examples illustrates natural selection in action. Good.

I'm fine with any actual facts, just not many of the fake facts that evolutionists like so much.

I've not seen any indication of that. The creation.com link you provided states "Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind."

Are they wrong?

Perhaps they are.... don't you think that most of their writings are incorrect?

 

[Clete]

All of it was true.



I'm pointing out that Darwinian scientists showed that eugenics was not only morally wrong, but scientifically insupportable; it doesn't work. And I showed that Darwin called such things "overwhelming evil."

And I noted that one of the founders of the Institute for Creation research was an enthusiastic eugenicist.



Don't see how. As you see, Darwin bluntly rejected the idea as "evil." And later Darwinists showed that it wouldn't work.

Reginald Punnett, for example, showed that it would take centuries to remove harmful recessives from a population even with strict eugenic rules imposed by law:
In 1917 Punnett again sought Hardy’s help over a similar problem, and this time Hardy himself calculated how slowly a recessive lethal is eliminated from a population, thus apparently discrediting the eugenicists’ claim that deleterious recessives could be eliminated in a few generations (Punnett 1917b)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3430543/

I think you're thinking of "social Darwnism", the "might makes right" notion that the wealthy and powerful are somehow more "fit" than poor or powerless people. It has very little to do with Darwin's theory or modern evolutionary theory, and indeed is scientifically wrong.


At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out the inferior genetics. Many philosophers noted evolutionary echoes in Hitler's march to exterminate an entire race of people. Various other dictators and criminals have claimed the cause of Social Darwinism in carrying out their acts. Even without such actions, Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.

Scientists and evolutionists maintain that this interpretation is only loosely based on Darwin's theory of natural selection. They will admit to an obvious parallel between Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and Spencer's beliefs. In nature, the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic, physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.

It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer's philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwin's work.
https://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm



If one didn't understand genetics and selection, perhaps. As I said, Darwinians showed that it wouldn't work, even with draconian laws enforcing it.



No. It just doesn't work. Eugenics depends on an erroneous idea of the way nature works, and had lost all credibility with scientists before Hitler began his "Final Solution."

By the mid-1930s, eugenics research came under increasing scrutiny, and independent analysis revealed that most eugenic data were useless. A committee of the American Neurological Association reported that "[The definitional problem] invalidates, we believe, the earlier work which comes from Davenport, Rosanoff and the American Eugenics School with its headquarters at Cold Spring Harbor." According to an external visiting committee assembled by the Carnegie Institution of Washington: "Some traits such as 'personality' or 'character' lack precise definition or quantitative methods of measurement; some traits such as 'sense of humor,' 'self respect', 'loyalty' or 'holding a grudge' could seldom be known outside an individual's close friends and associates…Even more objective characteristics, such as hair form or eye color, become relatively worthless items of genetic data when recorded by an untrained observer."

These critiques, among other factors, prompted the Carnegie Institution to withdraw its funding and permanently close down the ERO in December, 1939.
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay5text.html

Regardless, YE creationist William Tinkle (co-founder of the ICR) continued to promote eugenics into the 1960s.

And I'm not saying that means that all creationists are or were eugenicists. I'm just pointing out that creationists were advocating eugenics long after Darwinians had demonstrated that such ideas are scientifically wrong.

To recap:
1. Eugenics was initially denounced by Darwin as evil.
2. By the 1920s, Darwinans had shown that eugenic ideas were scientifically wrong.
3. "Social Darwinism" which has little to do with the real thing, led some to favor eugenics.
4. Some leaders of the creationist movement embraced eugenics.

It would be difficult to find a racist evolutionist today,since evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. Yet, into the 1990s, a founder of the ICR (Henry Morris) was still asserting that blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people.

I don't think that creationists are generally racist; I think most are not. However, racism is clearly consistent with the sort of creationism advocated by the ICR.

Wow! I'm disgusted and disappointed. Don't ever tell me that you're intellectually honest.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm fine with any actual facts

So we're in agreement that natural selection is a real thing.

Perhaps they are.... don't you think that most of their writings are incorrect?

Wait....perhaps? Earlier you seemed fairly confident in your assertions. Do you have other info regarding the peppered moths' genetics?

 

[Clete]

It's not random. The mutations are random. They can be good, though usually they are neutral (will not affect the organisms) or bad (usually results in an organism that is deficient, and dies before reproducing).

Good mutations are preserved bc they help that organism live longer and reproduce more than its peers. Due to being able to reproduce more and have more offspring than its peers, its positive mutation gets spread throughout the population over time. This is something we have observed in real time, a notable example off the top of my head being the moths in Britain. Prior to the industrial revolution they were almost always white in color. But after smog and soot covered London, the dark moths suddenly had the best camouflage. In less than a decade the moths turned completely black

Natural selection is not random. The mutations in DNA are.

As predicted.

 

[Clete]

Ha... Of course evolutionists will try deny It, or... as Barbarian does try to justify it saying 'some Christians are bad also.


As you pointed out the eugenics movement is largely rooted very close to Darwin himself, and For sure it is rooted in Darwinism.


Clete... if you haven't seen this Nazi video before...please watch "Smoking Gun Proof Nazis were Evolutionists.flv" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/QdH0c2FS-Wg


Also, as you are likely aware the eugenics movement known as planned parenthood was started by Margret Sanger. She said" It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

Astounding video.

It seems that evolutionists have a never ending stream of things like this. The denial that Nazism was Darwinian is so ludicrously asinine that its an insult to everyone's intelligence to even debate it. Barbarian wants to deny things that are blatantly obvious and easily verifiable by anyone with an internet connection or any set of encyclopedias published since the end of WWII. It's just simple stupidity!

Clete

 

[Stuu]

Astounding video.

It seems that evolutionists have a never ending stream of things like this. The denial that Nazism was Darwinian is so ludicrously asinine that its an insult to everyone's intelligence to even debate it. Barbarian wants to deny things that are blatantly obvious and easily verifiable by anyone with an internet connection or any set of encyclopedias published since the end of WWII. It's just simple stupidity!

Clete

Social Darwinism is not Darwinian.

Dawinian evolution by natural selection is the proved explanation for the variety of species on earth, including humans. But you can't make the mechanism of natural selection into a philosophy to live by, that would be completely immoral. The Social Darwinists advotate artificial selection, which has nothing to do with biological fitness. The disabled people mocked by the Nazis are still fit for survival because they were cared for by the rest of society, which is a secondary product of evolution.

Don't confuse the facts of our existence with how we should organise ourselves as communities.

Stuart

 

[The Barbarian]

Wow! I'm disgusted and disappointed. Don't ever tell me that you're intellectually honest.

What I'm telling you is true. I've linked to the evidence. It's just how things happened. Eugenics was thoroughly discredited by Darwinists before Hitler ever began the Holocaust. But some creationist leaders as late as the 1990s were still asserting that black people were inferior to others.

Again, I'm not saying that all or even most creationists were like that. I'm just showing you that eugenic ideas were refuted by Darwinism. They don't work. As Punnet showed, it would take centuries to accomplish the removal of even one harmful recessive.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The alleles contained BOTH colors in all of the moths. Can you not see that?

No. One allele has a phenotypic expression for black color. A different allele is expressed as white color. Old school Mendelian genetics (Gregor Mendel was a Christian monk, btw)

You have clearly not taken anything ever in regards to education about this subject. I don't mean that to sound condescending. But really, if you don't understand the most basic premises, how can I converse with you about this?

 

[Stuu]

These are NOT TWO DIFFERENT species with different genes. These moths have BOTH COLORS in their genes.

And chickens have the genes to make teeth, left over from their evolutionary history as theropod dinosaurs. When you remove the gene suppression, the chicken embryo produces reptile teeth.

Some creationist websites have an hilarious 'explanation' for the presence of these genes, a sort of 'just in case' argument. But with Jesus coming soon, how is it likely that chickens will find themselves in a new position of suddenly needing teeth?

They don't say what other genes the chickens have waiting 'in case'.

Obviously these creationists are not Calvinists.

Stuart

 

[Greg Jennings]

As predicted.

Not sure what that means. But advertise ignorance all you want. At least you're anonymous here.

On your protein question, amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. They can be formed easily from a rock dissolved in water and put in conditions similar to early Earth, such as a geothermal pool in Yellowstone. We've done this in the lab literally thousands of times. The inorganic matter recalibratea and forms amino acids, which can combine to form proteins.


Now it's my turn:
How did the Noah feed the animals on the ark? How did carnivores live without any meat or meat substitutes?

 

[Clete]

Social Darwinism is not Darwinian.

Dawinian evolution by natural selection is the proved explanation for the variety of species on earth, including humans. But you can't make the mechanism of natural selection into a philosophy to live by, that would be completely immoral. The Social Darwinists advotate artificial selection, which has nothing to do with biological fitness. The disabled people mocked by the Nazis are still fit for survival because they were cared for by the rest of society, which is a secondary product of evolution.

Don't confuse the facts of our existence with how we should organise ourselves as communities.

Stuart

The distinction is merely rhetorical. There is no such actual distinction, not logically. Evolutionists believe that society itself is an evolutionary development, as is everything else associated with life. We are either social apes or we aren't. We are either nature's most evolved animal or we aren't. If evolution has provided you with the ability to reproduce more effectively by killing me then who am I to argue with the experiments performed on my dead body designed to further your race by cleansing the world of mine? It is the logical extension of the evolutionary worldview. If you don't like it, you'll have to drop evolution or live with an irrational, compartmentalized worldview that you've made up so as to salve and balm your emotional state of mind.

Clete

 

[Clete]

What I'm telling you is true. I've linked to the evidence. It's just how things happened. Eugenics was thoroughly discredited by Darwinists before Hitler ever began the Holocaust. But some creationist leaders as late as the 1990s were still asserting that black people were inferior to others.

Again, I'm not saying that all or even most creationists were like that. I'm just showing you that eugenic ideas were refuted by Darwinism. They don't work. As Punnet showed, it would take centuries to accomplish the removal of even one harmful recessive.

No it isn't Barbarian. It takes 15 seconds to find the historical connections between modern eugenics and Darwinism. The guy who kicked it off was Darwin's cousin, for crying out loud. It's not too big of a stretch to think the one influenced the other. Besides there is evolutionary language used throughout Nazi propaganda, which, as I said, can be easily found and which has in fact already been presented on this very thread.

Your delusions about Darwinism defeating eugenics is laughable. Eugenics isn't dead, for one thing. And its modern day proponents make basically the same exact arguments the Nazi's did. And besides, who would believe that it would take centuries to breed out recessive genes? That's idiotic on its face. They've breed the unpredictably hostile nature out of Doberman Pinschers in less than 30 years, why would the breeding of apes be any different?
Give me a break, already.

 

[Clete]

Not sure what that means. But advertise ignorance all you want. At least you're anonymous here.

It means that you did and are doing precisely what I predicted you'd do.

On your protein question, amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. They can be formed easily from a rock dissolved in water and put in conditions similar to early Earth, such as a geothermal pool in Yellowstone. We've done this in the lab literally thousands of times. The inorganic matter recalibratea and forms amino acids, which can combine to form proteins.

That's stupitity on parade!

How, in any way, is that at all responsive to anything I said? Or is this what you are proposing happens inside living cells?

Nothing even remotely similar to dumping amino acids in water and hoping the right proteins happen to form inside a living cell. On the contrary. A very specific set of information is communicated via a symbolic logic scheme so as to create a very specific protein for very specific purposes, not the least of which is the creation of other proteins.

The fact is that atheists have no theory, nor even a working hypothesis on the subject of how such a process could possibly have evolved. Nor will they ever have one because it cannot have happened. You cannot get an information based symbolic logic from inanimate matter. Language requires a mind.

Now it's my turn:
How did the Noah feed the animals on the ark? How did carnivores live without any meat or meat substitutes?

God did it.

Clete

 

[Silent Hunter]

God did it.

And there it is... The creationist answer to anything they:

1) Don't understand.

2) Can't explain.

3) Can't lie about.

 

[The Barbarian]

No it isn't Barbarian. It takes 15 seconds to find the historical connections between modern eugenics and Darwinism. The guy who kicked it off was Darwin's cousin, for crying out loud.

And Darwin denounced the whole premise. In print. So they disagreed. But that's not main point. Darwinists later showed that the whole idea was flawed. Hitler and creationists kept right on, long after it was clear that the idea wouldn't work.

Sure people tried to use Darwinism to justify racism. In the American south, people tried to use Christianity to justify racism, as did Hitler. Those are just facts.

It's not too big of a stretch to think the one influenced the other.

It's very possible. Darwin became a fervent opponent of slavery after his experiences with the captain of the Beagle, a proponent of slavery. So he might have been so fervently opposed to eugenics because of Galton.

Besides there is evolutionary language used throughout Nazi propaganda,

And there is Christian langauge used throughout Nazi propaganda, as well as throughout KKK blather. If one is inclined to evil, any ideology can be twisted to one's purposes.

Your delusions about Darwinism defeating eugenics is laughable.

It's a fact. Once Morgan and Punnett (among others) analyzed that ideology, it was dead as far as science is concerned. So long as the alt-right and KKK exist, it will live on in the sewers but nowhere else. I would venture to say you won't even find a leader of creationists these days who advocates eugenics. I might be wrong, but I can't think of one.

And its modern day proponents make basically the same exact arguments the Nazi's did. And besides, who would believe that it would take centuries to breed out recessive genes? That's idiotic on its face.

Because recessive genes, as they become more and more rare, are rarely expressed, and become increasingly difficult to find, even if one could somehow rule all humans, killing off those with the recessives, and force-mating those without.

They've breed the unpredictably hostile nature out of Doberman Pinschers in less than 30 years,

If that was a dominant trait, which I doubt. It might not even be a trait, but a complex of different traits, each of which needs to be there to work. Unless you find the "hostile" allele in Dobermans, it's all imagination and no science.

I do know that the attempt to do so has badly affected the breed genetically. Genetic diversity in Dobermans has dropped to the point that it risks extinction as a breed:

The Doberman Pinscher is in serious trouble. About 60% of the breed is afflicted with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), with 13% affected by the time they are 6 years old and more than 40% by the age of 8. The disorder has an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance, but the causative genes are unknown.

DCM is fatal. The heart fails, sometimes in the absence of any symptoms of a problem, and the dog simply drops dead - in the middle of a game of fetch, during a run on an agility course, or while the family is away during the day at work and school. Most dogs die in their prime and even younger.

Clearly, the efforts made by breeders over the last three decades to decrease the incidence DCM have had no effect at all on the prevalence of the disorder. Not even a little.
I wrote last summer about the tragedy of watching this noble breed go extinct before our very eyes (see Are We Watching the Extinction of a Breed?).

What are we doing to deal with this problem? Breeders are routinely monitoring their dogs for the electrical abnormalities that are signs of DCM. They are trying to select from lines that appear to be less afflicted with the problem.

However, the question nobody seems to be asking is whether it is even possible to rid the breed of this problem through selective breeding. Can better monitoring and ever more selective breeding reduce the incidence of this horrible problem in Dobermans? Is there enough genetic diversity in the breed to "breed away" from DCM?
http://www.instituteofcaninebiology...n-the-genetic-status-of-the-doberman-pinscher

Eugenic approaches don't work in humans, and seem to be a failure in dogs. As you probably know, mutts are more adaptable, often more intelligent, and generally are more healthy than purebreds.

why would the breeding of apes be any different?

Yes.

 

[Right Divider]

So we're in agreement that natural selection is a real thing.

Natural SELECTION only affects things what ALREADY exist. It is NOT a creative force that makes NEW things.

Wait....perhaps? Earlier you seemed fairly confident in your assertions. Do you have other info regarding the peppered moths' genetics?

Before: Peppered Moths of different colors.
After: Peppered Moths of different colors.

No adaptation, no change to the existing genes, etc. etc. etc.

If predators ate every last Peppered moth of one color, there would still be NO NEW creature created. Just the loss of any existing one.

Is this hard for you to understand?

 

[Right Divider]

No. One allele has a phenotypic expression for black color. A different allele is expressed as white color. Old school Mendelian genetics (Gregor Mendel was a Christian monk, btw)

You have clearly not taken anything ever in regards to education about this subject. I don't mean that to sound condescending. But really, if you don't understand the most basic premises, how can I converse with you about this?

Before: Peppered Moths of different colors.
After: Peppered Moths of different colors.

No adaptation, no change to the existing genes, etc. etc. etc.

If predators ate every last Peppered moth of one color, there would still be NO NEW creature created. Just the loss of any existing one.

Is this hard for you to understand?