Wow, a Godwin in one.

That essay is poorly (not) cited. It contains several instances of logical fallacies as well.


Edwin Conklin is a rather outdated source to be quoting for the purposes of indicting biologists. Even so, I would like to see a citation for the quote given, though as a biologist he is hardly ion the right field to be taken as an expert on social or political policy. This is the same reason I don't get my politics from professional musicians. Given the times in which he lived/flourished, this was hardly the minority view for any white person in America, that white were somehow inherently better than other "races". We can of course indict biologists for not rising above their fellow man in this respect, but why not indict every single person who lived in the late 19th century?

Also, this hardly proves evolution leads to racism, as we do not know whether it was racism that would lead to such a statement or the other way around. We are not given enough information for a causative chain to be established in this case.

Indeed of the biologists mentioned Edward Simon is the most recent, having died in 2006. He received his doctorate in 1959, he was a recognized expert in his field, and wholly unqualified to make historical and sociological pronouncements professionally.

His statement is also opinion, he does not bother to support it with research, or if so the article did not see fit to mention it. But it is rather like blaming a man who invents a machine that efficiently makes steel for all the deaths due to weapons that it allowed by making their manufacture cheaper.

His statement is tied to a view that evolution and atheism cause moral decay. This requires a moral standard to be judging from, which is, in his case, Jewish and theistic. However, morals or ethics are not strictly tied to theism, though many people may say otherwise, holding a particular moral code that excludes all others as valid. Matt Ridley does a rather good job of discussing this in his book The Origin of Virtue for those who are interested.

This article seems to be among those relating to a Discover Institute strategy. One that involves linking evolution to Nazism and racism to evoke an emotional response that shuts down reason.

It neglects to mention that it was evolutionary biology that provided information debunking eugenics. Not to mention that the evangelical movement, the source of most of the anti-evolutionary rhetoric linking it to Nazis via eugenics have a nice little history with eugenics as well, as noted in the citation for the article on the Discover Institute's strategies.

Another thing to note is that racism and supremacy movements predate Darwin's theory by many centuries at least if not millennia. So rather than being the basis, it was merely a tool used by men to justify their beliefs and actions. In order to do this they needed to make assumptions not within the theory, such as that evolution is a constant upward progress, or that newer is better. However it also can require deliberate manipulation of the theory to make it seem to support a position. Evolution is about adaptation. Humans, regardless of our outer appearance are one species, we developed regional "looks" as adaptations, though not all of them are. These do not provide superiority or inferiority, nor does it make one group "less evolved" than another.

Evolution is about adaptation. Humans, regardless of our outer appearance are one species, we developed regional "looks" as adaptations, though not all of them are. These do not provide superiority or inferiority, nor does it make one group "less evolved" than another.
It seems strange that this so called "adaptation" has no biological scientific basis, yet it has everything to do with evolution? Care to explain?
There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution

Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.
The average single human gene is a piece of DNA comprised of 100,000 pairs of amino acids all of which are perfectly sequenced. It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection."
As you read this, many of you are asking "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in order to become human.
The Missing Genetic Mechanism for Adding a Gene

Darwinists tell us that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. They claim that life on Earth first began about 4 billion years ago as the simplest form of single-cellular bacteria, called prokaryotes and the prokaryotes evolved into ever more complex organisms, such as multi-cellular bacteria, then crustaceans, and then fish followed by amphibians, some of which evolved into reptiles, and some reptiles branched out and became dinosaurs and birds, while some other reptiles evolved in another direction to become mammals, which include humans.
Scientists do not know how many genes the earliest prokaryotes had but the simplest bacteria of today have about 500 genes. Humans have about 22,410 genes. Because humans have about 22,000 more genes than prokaryotes, the only way prokaryotes could have evolved into humans would be by ADDING GENES to their genome. In fact, the only way any species could have evolved to become a more complex organism is to increase its Gene Count. (The Gene Count is the number of genes in a genome.)
Darwinian Evolution claims every species evolved from a predecessor species. An organism has to increase its Gene Count if it is going to evolve into a more advanced and more complex organism. In order for Darwinian Evolution to work, there has to be a genetic mechanism for an organism to add a gene. But there is no way to add a gene. Darwinian Evolution is fatally flawed.
If the Theory of Evolution were correct, the prokaryotes and their descendants would have had to increase their Gene Count tens of thousands of times to go from 500 genes to over 22 thousand genes in order to evolve into Homo sapiens.
The ability to add genes is a required part of the Theory of Evolution. Since increasing the Gene Count is absolutely necessary for Darwinian Evolution, how come evolution scientists NEVER talk about it? You have never read or heard any of them discuss this required part of Darwinian Evolution.
Darwin Conspiracy: Darwinian Evolution is missing a way to add genes

Josef Mengle's doctorate thesis was on the jaw structure of different races and how that relates to said race's place in evolution. Of course, those of Aryan descent won out as the example of a "higher" evolution.

By the way, the good Dr. Mengle got his first doctorate in anthropology (PhD).

[quote=Wow;201361]It seems strange that this so called "adaptation" has no biological scientific basis, yet it has everything to do with evolution? Care to explain?
There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution [/url]

If you will note, this article on human "race" does cover the biology behind it. My point was that not all characteristic are useful adaptations. A heavy epicanthic fold is useful for dealing with snow-blindness, a high melanin level is good to deal with a lot of sun, but a propensity for blue eyes or red hair is not.

[quote=Wow;201361]
The ability to add genes is a required part of the Theory of Evolution. Since increasing the Gene Count is absolutely necessary for Darwinian Evolution, how come evolution scientists NEVER talk about it? You have never read or heard any of them discuss this required part of Darwinian Evolution.[/url]

Where do you get these poorly researched articles? Clearly the author has not heard of Gene Duplication or is willfully ignoring the fact of its existence. If you want to talk about evolution, quit using Darwinian in front of it. That means you want to talk about the old original Theory without the extra 150 years of scientific research done on the topic. Maybe that is the problem, gene duplication wasn't known at that time. It first entered into the scientific consciousness in 1911, so blaming Darwin for not knowing this is rather like blaming the first person top figure out how to shape bronze for not making steel.

[quote=Solon;201398][quote=Wow;201361]It seems strange that this so called "adaptation" has no biological scientific basis, yet it has everything to do with evolution? Care to explain?
There is No Genetic Mechanism for Darwinian Evolution [/url]

If you will note, this article on human "race" does cover the biology behind it. My point was that not all characteristic are useful adaptations. A heavy epicanthic fold is useful for dealing with snow-blindness, a high melanin level is good to deal with a lot of sun, but a propensity for blue eyes or red hair is not.

I have presented several sources questioning this guess concerning evolution and you offer nothing!

You have yet to present a single fact to prove evolution is more than a guess.

Evolution to work, there has to be a genetic mechanism for an organism to add a gene. But there is no way to add a gene.
It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection."
Do you have some evidence that a gene can be added or a gene does not need to be added?

In your first post you seem to accept evolution, but blame it for social ills, then in your second post you say it has no way to add genes. I provide a link to an article discussing just that and you say I have not presented evidence? What standard of evidence are you using? What form of evidence will you accept. Or rather, what is it you would need to see to be convinced of evolution? If your answer is "nothing" then you are being unreasonable and dogmatic in the extreme. If there is no evidence that could possibly convince you, what is the point in the debate? Let me know if this is the case so I may put my time to better use in another thread.

By calling gene duplication a guess you show a lack of how science works. Read Karl Popper, it is all conjectures and refutations, you can never reach truth, merely more closely approximate it until that new theory is refuted, then we revise test and continue. The scientific term theory and the layman's term theory have different meanings, much like how the word secure means different things to civilians, naval personnel and marines. Theory does not mean guess, it is a thoroughly tested hypothesis with large amounts of data and experimentation. Calling something a law in science is very old fashioned, that level of certainty is not available. If you're wondering why read up on the Münchhausen-Trilemma, also called Agrippa's Trilemma. Follow that up with a little study of epistemology and the point I am making should become clearer.

Gene duplication does happen, that is an observable fact. Gene's are created and then mutate at an accelerated rate, this is how the total gene count is increased. The article provided even mentions speciation, which is another key concept in evolution that is often contested by those in opposition. I find the opposition usually does not begin with science, but from another source, often religious or social, and then, unable to accept the science due to these reasons they seek some way of refuting the science. They put a fixed belief before experimentation and questioning, thus eliminating the possibility of learning anything.

If you are not able to converse about scientific theories with some understanding of how science operates I can wait. It is not beneficial to do so until then as I do not have the time to constantly correct you on basis philosophy of science and terminology while also debating the merits and faults of a theory. If you wish to discuss philosophy of science, by all means start a thread and I will happily participate.

Please prove to me that evolution is nothing more than conjecture.

In a way everything is conjecture at some level or another, that was one of my points you did not see fit to address.

Another part of my last post you appear to have skipped is where I asked what form of evidence you would like. What is it you will accept as evidence of evolution, if there is nothing you can imagine that would change your views then this is a fruitless conversation, if there is, please tell me so I may bring it to your attention.

Of course we have fully left behind the OP, so perhaps this deserves a different thread, perhaps one in the correct sub-forum since we are no longer talking about Race or Affirmative Action, but rather, science. Please respond by starting such a topic if you are interested, otherwise I am content to leave this as it stands.

I'll accept any material evidence that can not be disputed.