Math Logic Disproves Evoution

[Jester4kicks]

Though I must say, this is a novel argument against evolution.

No... it's not. It's grasping at straws and completely mixing concepts. In order to argue evolution, you must understand the theory in the first place.

This guy doesn't.

 

[no1nose]

Indeed, in the 1950s, Dmitri Belyaev showed that it took wild silver foxes only twenty years to evolve to be as tame as dogs. So even in complex mammals, behaviour instincts can be rapidly changed (this is useful for, say, diminishing food supplies, or encroaching territories).

I would say the this is adaption and not evolution.

 

[Melethiel]

I would say the this is adaption and not evolution.

No difference.

 

[no1nose]

No difference.
__________________

Evolution is the product of chance mutations. The case described wasn't. It was adapting to the environment.

 

[lemmings]

Evolution is the product of chance mutations. The case described wasn't. It was adapting to the environment.

There is still no difference. Adaption and evolution are both the result of natural selection weeding out bad mutations from the gene pool.

 

[no1nose]

There is still no difference. Adaption and evolution are both the result of natural selection weeding out bad mutations from the gene pool.

This sounds like survival of the fittest

 

[lemmings]

This sounds like survival of the fittest

This is the first usage of the phrase 'survival of the fittest.'

"This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."

Now, compare it to the title of Darwin's book.

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."



They are all the same thing!
Herbert Spencer's definiton of 'survival of the fittest' is the exact same thing that Darwin called evolution.

 

[no1nose]

There is still no difference. Adaption and evolution are both the result of natural selection weeding out bad mutations from the gene pool

Which naturally leads to this sort of thinking:

Eugenics

For more details on this topic, see Eugenics.
Following Darwin’s publication of the Origin, his cousin, Francis Galton, applied the concepts to human society, starting in 1865 with ideas to promote “hereditary improvement” which he elaborated at length in 1869.[138] In The Descent of Man Darwin agreed that Galton had demonstrated the probability that “talent” and “genius” in humans was inherited, but dismissed the social changes Galton proposed as too utopian.[139] Neither Galton nor Darwin supported government intervention and thought that, at most, heredity should be taken into consideration by people seeking potential mates.[140] In 1883, after Darwin’s death, Galton began calling his social philosophy Eugenics.[141] In the 20th century, eugenics movements gained popularity in a number of countries and became associated with reproduction control programmes such as compulsory sterilisation laws,[142] then were stigmatised after their usage in the rhetoric of Nazi Germany in its goals of genetic “purity”.[V]

Social Darwinism

For more details on this topic, see Social Darwinism.
The ideas of Thomas Malthus and Herbert Spencer which applied ideas of evolution and “survival of the fittest” to societies, nations and businesses became popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, and were used to defend various, sometimes contradictory, ideological perspectives including laissez-faire economics,[143]colonialism,[144]racism and imperialism.[144] The term “Social Darwinism” originated around the 1890s, but became popular as a derogatory term in the 1940s with Richard Hofstadter’s critique of laissez-faire conservatism.[145] The concepts predate Darwin’s publication of the Origin in 1859:[144][146] Malthus died in 1834[147] and Spencer published his books on economics in 1851 and on evolution in 1855.[148] Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature,[149] and that sympathy should be extended to all races and nations.[150][VI

]



Evolution is about the survival of the fittest.

Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit.

While abuses occur within the Christian Church its core belief system does not support them. The same cannot be said for The Theory of Evolution whose core belief system treats as natural the extinction of the “unfit”. These may be anyone who is politically out of favor as were the Jews in Germany where Hitler used “evolutionary” rhetoric to plead his cause.


.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No... it's not. It's grasping at straws and completely mixing concepts. In order to argue evolution, you must understand the theory in the first place.

This guy doesn't.

I didn't say it was a good argument or an informed argument, just a novel argument.

 

[theFijian]

The same cannot be said for The Theory of Evolution whose core belief system ....

F. Evolution is not a belief system.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Which naturally leads to this sort of thinking: [Eugenics]

No, it doesn't: eugenics is the belief that some human races are superior to others, which is fallacious. Natural selection is simply selection based upon those who just so happen to survive long enough to reproduce. Those with beneficial mutations are more likely to reproduce, so novel beneficial mutations become the norm in the long run. This is the theory of evolution and leads directly to the theory of common descent.

Eugenics, however, replaces natural selection with artificial selection, and is the mass extinction of entire races, even though there is no 'fitter' or 'superior' race: we are all as good at reproducing as each other. That is why eugenics is fundamentally flawed.

Evolution is about the survival of the fittest.

Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit.

Strawman and equivocation. "Survival of the fittest" is an inaccurate caricature, and the "fittest" and "unfit" do not refer to the same thing (the former best refers to genes that are more likely to be proliferated, the latter to humans in need of spiritual salvation).

While abuses occur within the Christian Church its core belief system does not support them. The same cannot be said for The Theory of Evolution whose core belief system treats as natural the extinction of the “unfit”.

If it occurs by natural means, yes. Otherwise one can hardly call NATURAL the extinction of a species by NATURAL selection.

These may be anyone who is politically out of favor as were the Jews in Germany where Hitler used “evolutionary” rhetoric to plead his cause.

Even though you're wrong, there's a very important question here: so what? The truth of common descent doesn't depend on how good said truth makes us feel. Astronomy is a humbling science, but it isn't any less true because of it. We may want to be the centre of the universe, we may want to be ultimately unrelated to the other animals, but reality rarely bends to the wishes of the masses: it is what it is, regardless of the consequences to humanity.

 

[lemmings]

Which naturally leads to this sort of thinking:

No, it doesn't. If it did lead to that kind of thinking, why is it that there have been genocides prior to Darwin? Remember Martin Luther? His anti-Semitic speeches where used by the Nazi party to gain supporters in Germany. The Holocaust was the result of half a millennium of racism in Europe.

Evolution is about the survival of the fittest.

Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit.

Really now. How is it that Christianity is going to save an organism with a genetic disorder?

While abuses occur within the Christian Church its core belief system does not support them. The same cannot be said for The Theory of Evolution whose core belief system treats as natural the extinction of the “unfit”. These may be anyone who is politically out of favor as were the Jews in Germany where Hitler used “evolutionary” rhetoric to plead his cause.

Once again. Hitler did not use evolution to gain supporters; he used the writings of Martin Luther.

 

[gluadys]

I would say the this is adaption and not evolution.

This sounds like survival of the fittest.

How one labels a process doesn't change the process. Darwin called it 'natural selection'. Spencer called it 'survival of the fittest'. But there is no way to describe how the fit survive without invoking natural selection as the means by which the fit survive.

So they are the same thing.

Likewise with adaptation and evolution. Evolution is the means by which adaptation happens. Try to describe the process of adaptation without invoking the mechanisms of evolution. You can't do it. They are the same process. Different names for the same thing don't make it a different thing.

Sometimes we say "taxi" sometimes we say "cab" and in both cases we mean a "taxicab" (the original term). It's the same thing. Same with adaptation and evolution. Same with natural selection and survival of the fittest.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Which naturally leads to this sort of thinking:

Evolution is about the survival of the fittest.

Christianity is about the redemption of the unfit.

While abuses occur within the Christian Church its core belief system does not support them. The same cannot be said for The Theory of Evolution whose core belief system treats as natural the extinction of the “unfit”. These may be anyone who is politically out of favor as were the Jews in Germany where Hitler used “evolutionary” rhetoric to plead his cause.

You're repeating yourself. It was a rediculous analogy the first time you said it, and it's still a rediculous analogy now.

Once again, you're showing that you're not here for a discussion... you're just here to keep copy/pasting the same things over and over.

I didn't say it was a good argument or an informed argument, just a novel argument.

Fair enough... although I tend to think an "argument" of any type requires actual substance... this guy has nothing of the sort.

 

[no1nose]

Once again. Hitler did not use evolution to gain supporters; he used the writings of Martin Luther.

Hitler used what ever he could.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Darwin's idea that evolution means "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" eventually led to Nazism and the Jewish holocaust - even though Darwin himself would have been appalled at the thought."19[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sir Arthur Keith wrote: "The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the 'national front' of Europe is also the 'evolutionary front;' he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people."59 and "Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?"19[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting ization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of s." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."59[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The success in breeding cattle, dogs and other animals with certain desired characteristics gave empirical support to the concept of racial breeding as advocated by eugenicists and later Hitler and others.19[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hitler exterminated over 273,000 people even before the Holocaust! [/FONT]

 

[Melethiel]

When you copy and paste from somewhere, please cite your source.

 

[no1nose]

When you copy and paste from somewhere, please cite your source.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm


Just google hitler evolution.
Best to read some of Hitler's writings and speeches for yourself.

 

[Mallon]

My goodness. Are people still trying to blame evolution for the Holocaust? Hitler twisted all sorts of teachings to justify his actions, including Christianity. And I don't see anyone here trying to vilify Christianity for it.
Really, folks. Move on.

 

[lemmings]

Hitler used what ever he could.

By saying this, you have voided your entire argument. You have conformend that the Holocaust was not the inevitable outcome of natural selection and that external sources where required for Hitler to gain supporters.

Fail!

 

[no1nose]

Hitler twisted all sorts of teachings

It would clear things up if you could explain a bit more. How and where did he twist the Theory of Evolution?