Darwinism: Science or philosophy?

Your link does not work Gunny.

Thanks Gunny, works now.

Awww, did big bad scientists disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and make poor cretinists cry?

Thanks yet again, Gunny.

Originally posted by npetreley
Thanks yet again, Gunny.

Click to expand...

http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gstory.htm 

yes, lets have a battle with other peoples opinions, its oh so very enlightening to simply endlessly link other peoples opinions. It saves us from having to present our own.

Originally linked to by gunnysgt (believe it or not):

"One of the interesting observations of the last few years has been the observation that DNA molecules share sequences of information even though they code for proteins with totally dissimilar functions. For example, Nobel-prize-winning work done in Dallas by Brown and Goldstein involved the receptors for low density lipoproteins. These are proteins on the surface of cells that allow entry to cholesterol. They are vital to normal fat metabolism. Brown and Goldstein studied the receptor molecule and found that a portion contains a gene sequence exactly the same as 'epidermal growth factor,' a growth stimulatory protein. There is absolutely no basis that anyone could have made for predicting this a priori. It doesn't really make sense why proteins should be constructed as patchwork from other preexisting proteins.

"It makes very good sense, however, in terms of the theory of evolution if we think of natural selection as taking advantage of whatever happens to be handy at the time. In fact, the theory of evolution predicts that molecules would be made over the same way that anatomical structures are. They are taken advantage of by natural selection and made over for entirely new tasks. I might also mention parenthetically that this observation demolishes the 'unlikelihood' objection to evolution. Complex structures in biology don't arise de novo; they evolve from pre-existing structures.

"You could argue that there is no reason why a creator couldn't do that, too. Phillip Johnson has stated that God could design living creatures in any fashion he wished, including the use of natural selection. But if you accept the notion of a God who pulls out odds and ends of biological systems and throws them together (sometimes ineptly), this is a long ways from the omnipotent creator usually considered in this context. If you analyze the question through the principle of Occam's Razor, and look for the simplest hypothesis, it is easiest to envision the process of the development of living systems through natural selection. It makes sense. It works.

"When we test hypotheses in biology, we are always asking, does this function or property have selective value? Does a structure or molecule increase the chances of survival for the particular organism, for the particular living system that we happen to be investigating? If it doesn't seem to, why not? Where does this lead us? To new, previously unknown functions? A cornucopia of information has appeared in the last few years in the field of molecular biology that I believe overwhelmingly supports the principles of evolution through natural selection."

-- "Response to William A. Dembski," by K. John Morrow, Jr.

__________________________________________________


Thank you, gunnysgt, for singlehandedly debunking the central claim of "intelligent design theory [sic]."

I knew you had it in you, old chum. Will wonders never cease.

Originally posted by chickenman
yes, lets have a battle with other peoples opinions, its oh so very enlightening to simply endlessly link other peoples opinions. It saves us from having to present our own.

Click to expand...

CM, he has a good point to make. What do you have against citing a source?

I knew for some time now that darwinism was a way of life for some people (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). Thanks, Sarge!

God bless you!

Alex

I have nothing against citing a source, as long as you don't just spam the board with source after source without any of your own opinions or statements regarding the sources. There is a huge link list at talk.origins to both sides of the debate for that

OK, that's good, CM. It's just that while not many people will take my words seriously, people are more likely to take Mao Zedong's words seriously (for example). That's why people give links to other sites.

Good night, CM!

Originally posted by alexgb00


CM, he has a good point to make. What do you have against citing a source?

Click to expand...

How do you "cite a source" without making an argument?

I knew for some time now that darwinism was a way of life for some people (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). Thanks, Sarge!

Click to expand...

Hitler was a Christian. Where did he profess a faith in "Darwinism?"

Originally posted by alexgb00
CM, he has a good point to make. What do you have against citing a source?

I knew for some time now that darwinism was a way of life for some people (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). Thanks, Sarge!

Click to expand...

What is all this business about Hitler and Stalin? They don't have anything to do with this thread.

alexgb00, what do you think about the excellent examples of scaffolding and co-option at the molecular level that gunnysgt provided?

gunnysgt has convinced me "intelligent design theory [sic]" is a political and religious farce! *Salutes gunnysgt*

"Hitler was a Christian. Where did he profess a faith in "Darwinism?""

Please read the documented quote from Hitler that is in my signature block below. Hitler was anti-Christian.

People like Stalin and Hitler have been mispresenting Darwin's findings for a long time now. Especially in the few decades after his death. An example of this would be in Richard Connell's short story The Most Dangerous Game. General Zaroff, the antagonist, is a former Cossock noble who mispresents Darwin's findings to justify hunting humans.

Um, CS, that isn't a profession of belief in Darwinian evolution. That's one of Hitler's myriad quotes that are lies. It should be obvious to many that Hitler only used religion (either for or against) to gain followers. He was a ruthless politician, the best, I think.

"Um, CS, that isn't a profession of belief in Darwinian evolution. That's one of Hitler's myriad quotes that are lies. It should be obvious to many that Hitler only used religion (either for or against) to gain followers. He was a ruthless politician, the best, I think."

I never said that the documented Hitler quote in my signature block was a profession of belief in Darwinian evolution. It was obvious to anyone with good reading comprehension, that I was responding to blader's false allegation that Hitler was a Christian. Hitler and his inner circle intended to destroy Christianity. That cold, hard fact has been documented many times by many people.